Sure.

I'll take it from here.

What is your "point", OP. These concepts and mental "discoveries" (gymnastics, others will call) are surely fascinating, entertaining, if nothing else.

But what do you expect the average person to gain from knowing what you claim to know over those who will live and die in a state of relative ignorance of what you believe to know?

Sure, it's nice to know every single digit of pi. But... it doesn't really "do anything". Let alone offer any sort of benefit the layperson person can apply in their lives and the lives of those around them. So, tell me. Am I wrong? And if I am, please provide the concrete proof in simple handcrafted sentences and not a simply copy and paste that only suggests a unique (yet inherently useless) "intellectual resonance" with those who scream the same pattern, not unlike a bat and its sonar.

What are you going to "take" exactly? Is this an argument against my point or a personal suggestion? Is this not a philophy forum and is not what Ive written philosophy? Am I in the wrong place or are you being rude because you cant grasp the meaning of what Ive written? Youre the one who is not doing anything by suggesting that what Im writting is "useless".


"He spoke to me. Not very politely or profoundly"

What are you going to "take" exactly? — Illuminati

Why, whatever I can fashion into helping me along on this difficult road of life, of course. What a silly inquiry. :smile:

Is this an argument against my point or a personal suggestion? — Illuminati

Neither, 'tis but a simple question. Or so I thought? Apologies. :confused:

Is this not a philophy forum and is not what Ive written philosophy? Am I in the wrong place or are you being rude because you cant grasp the meaning of what Ive written? — Illuminati

This is a philosophy forum. Where ideas are put onto the chopping block and attacked without mercy. Truth survives, anything else does not. Did you not know this? I see no rudeness in the mere idea of one being confused and so asking questions so as to remedy such confusion. Do you not seek to remedy confusion or merely make those already less fortunate than yourself feel even worse. This is weird. What I and many and most would call "rude", actually. Say I cannot understand. Do you insult those who wish to become like yourself? Who in your life and childhood established this pattern in your psyche as normal? It is not normal, I will make sure you know. And you can escape from it. If you only believe and respond as you would wish to be responded to. Is such a concept so lost in your mind? Surely it is not. So please. Come now. Think. Take a deep breath. And be the person you wish to be. To educate those who do not know what they wish to know, that you do know, or so you say?

We were all young and naive once. Surely you do not consider all children or those not as intelligent as you as "rude" simply for asking natural questions. Do you? :confused:

Compare my OP and comments with your comment. Good luck.

Compare my OP and comments with your comment. Good luck. — Illuminati

So, you have no real point, essentially. Or at the very least cannot understand an idea enough to simplify it for those who wish to grasp it. Cool. All you had to do was say that. See, it wasn't so hard. :smile:

If you were polite I would have answered just like I did with everyone else who messaged me. Contrary you are showing how well your parents raised you.

Personally, I can't recommend it, as one who has also followed this line of thought. It's enlightening but alienating.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Because there is.

Why do we need to eat? Because we need to eat, vs because our body requires it.

Yes

Why must everything have a point?

Fascinating to see others independently come to similar realizations as myself. I can tell you from experience though that this line of reasoning (however true) has tended to be more harmful than helpful, in my experience.

It is fascinating, Ive never met a single person who did but I believe I will. This is also proof that the Truth is unique for us all, we are all One.

Why must everything have a point? — MrLiminal

No one said everything must. That which is meaningless, simply disppaears as it should. This is fine. In fact, demanded by those who know a life without meaning, or, shall I say, "the life unexamined", is without worth and so inevitably becomes little more than a burden to that which does have worth.

Specifically, in the context of an online post on a forum with specific rules that basically say everything just short of "your post has to have a point" AKA "not be spam". I mean, the rules are self-evident.

Until OP explains why this post and the writing of this so called book he claims to be related to (which is still unproven), it's like if I just posted a new thread and posted all 255 of the widely-accepted colors in no particular order than what my favorite is (or may not be, since OP continues to refuse to offer at least some sort of personal guidance or preference and reason as to any idea offered).

Like, I can do that now, if you'd like. Maybe add some pseudo-intellectual padding and faux symbolism and we'd have two identical threads on the front page serving no real purpose other than to exist. Art and creativity, or even purposeless expression is fine, but again, a debate forum, as OP requested clarification of, specifically this forum, requires posts adhere to rules. And such rules invoke concepts. Such concepts I questioned OP about and he, at best, refused to answer.

Since you like rules why dont you follow the simplest of them all? Being polite. If I had answered your question I would show you that I allow this type of behavior towards me. Control your emotions.

This is you now: "This information is useless because I dont understand it, I require an answer!"

This could be you: "Please explain what you meant by saying that...()".


Cant believe I have to teach basic manners on a philosophy forum to an adult(?). If someone has a question feel free to ask, thats exactly why Im here. But impolite requests will not be taken seriously. If you see something and call it useless because you dont understand it, then you definitelly have some personal unsolved issues. Yes, I have done the same thing in the past. No, Im not proud of it.

If you were polite I would have answered just like I did with everyone else who messaged me. — Illuminati

You will not find a single example of any post in this discussion, even remotely possible, I might add, as "rude", as my reply is to the IDEA expressed. So this is you first introducing a hint of hostility for simply wishing to gain knowledge. This makes you an enemy of the spirit of philosophy, in case you were not aware.

Remember, I don't know you. Frankly, I don't even know you really even exist and aren't some sort of robot. I am attacking/attempting to disprove an IDEA, that is posted on this free debate forum. Not you. I couldn't care less whether or not you think this idea is definitive of you or representative of you or anything you care about or not. Because it's not. It's an idea. At this point, it is completely independent of you and therefore has nothing to do with you. No different than a random note card being placed in front of my view. This is a basic fundamental understanding in philosophical debate you should know about, yet exhibit clear signs you do not.

There is ignorance. There are mistakes. These are often misconstrued as some sort of negative ill-will or that which is "rudeness", but, they're not.

This is not a "polite" forum, this is a "philosophy" forum. I was polite. The problem is some cultist people think anything that is a direct opposition to ingrained falsehood is "impolite". No, it's "insensitive", to those who find sensitivity in false self-worth. And if you are one of them, I apologize. But I will not allow you to trap others in such clearly miserable states of being where one can't even respond to a simple question without unwarranted malice. That's sickness. It's a disease. If not, let us move on and revert to the same unanswered question.

What is the "point" of this philosophy you wish to share with others? What does it "do"? What misfortunes or negative outcomes and experiences will those who are ignorant of it likely experience?

It's a simple question. Gone unanswered. Which again, proves the point that others greater than me have made. It's not logical. But beyond even that, it's non-beneficial. And that which is non-beneficial, is, a burden. A blight. A plague. Why would you knowingly unleash this upon us good folk here?

See, in a word, you're mesmerized. The way I child becomes upon looking into a kaleidoscope for the first time. But guess what? You keep looking at it. You realize. It's nothing mesmerizing.

Now, of course. I could simply be wrong. So, answer the simple question. What does this text or the summarized knowledge of said text offer to those who read it versus those who remain ignorant of it, in life? Can you not do that? It's quite simple.

Yes, I will answer your question if you first apologize for calling me a fool, for being toxic, manipulative and sarcastic (at the very least) and to stop writing too long for no reason- responces with chat-gpt style messages that contribute nothing to this discussion(if there is one).

"See, in a word, you're mesmerized. The way I child becomes upon looking into a kaleidoscope for the first time. But guess what? You keep looking at it. You realize. It's nothing mesmerizing."

I understand your inability to understand what Ive written, but I dont understand your inability to communicate that to me.

- "Fool"
- "Has nothing to do with you"
- "I was not being rude"

Well, we don't see eye to eye on the whole zero and chaos thing, but that's okay. I don't want to either encourage or discourage you.

This is a philosophy forum, we are supposed to discuss it, not encourage, discourage or anything like that. I dont understand whats up with all these comments. I get it Im in the wrong place perharps?

If you dont see eye to eye then that means you have an argument, if you dont want to share it thats fine, but its weird seeing all these weird responces I got on this forum.

Personally, I can't recommend it, as one who has also followed this line of thought. It's enlightening but alienating. — MrLiminal

I think i know what you mean, but i don't mind the trouble.

If you dont see eye to eye then that means you have an argument, if you dont want to share it thats fine, but its weird seeing all these weird responces I got on this forum. — Illuminati

I do have an argument, but I'll just observe for now. And yes, it is a little weird, but also interesting.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Because there is. — MrLiminal

And what is the nature of this "Because there is"?

"because" = 'by reason of'
"there" = 'at that place'
"is" = 'to be'

"Because there is" = to be at that place by reason of... what?

It is not an answer but another question.

Can you please message me privatelly regarding your argument? I want to know if I am wrong somehow.

Excuse me for the late responce but I cant stop thinking that you are a mathematician and I have a question regarding that.

As a mathematician, how would you formally account for the emergence of spatial structure within an entity that is dimensionless? Specifically, how can space, as a relational or metric construct, arise from a foundational state that lacks extension, orientation, or measurable attributes? It is known in physics that space is not an objective reality but a derivative phenomenon of internal differentiation, meaning space itself (the universe to be more exact) does not require spatial integration or requires just one point(either one is true according to a discussion I had with a person with phd in physics).

In "plain" English : The spatial dimension does not expand but rather is being "stretched". This is happening because the universe is all there is and for it to grow it would take "something" out of nothing, in reality every single phenomenon we witness (colours, distance, time) are not composed of the thing that they constitute, like space and distances- or PH that I mentioned earlier which is set by the attributes of Hydrogen. What I am asking is how would he explain such a thing in mathematics.

Oh my, have myself and OP have been having a good (and pleasant, might I add) conversation in the Private Message function. Which he initiated, of course (by the way). Nice for someone to reach out to me on this platform for once, quite frankly. :lol:

Anyway, to summarize I have since apologized and explained that when one makes a foolish argument they are in fact a "fool" in that specific moment and context, no different than when one enters a running shower they become "wet" and when they remove themselves form said shower (let's compare the shower to ignorance) they are no longer "wet", per se.

Oh my, you should see our pleasantries and nonchalant back and forths in PM. Like giddy little school girls we giggle and discuss truths and virtue. Not really. That's mostly just me.

But anyway, as he requested. To ask "the question" which, I mean, I swore was simple enough. Perhaps not.

Let me do my best to ask it again.

It's just so difficult seeing as it's a book. So, let me offer one line of text, and one simple question if that line of text fails to encapsulate the idea of the text in anyone's mind.

Imagine two people. One who studies, knows, and believes the idea and concepts this text offers. And one person who does not.

What benefit does the one who knows, studies, and believes the ideas and concepts have over the other?

Is the other damned? Or unfortunate? Or some kind of word you know you shouldn't say because it would be ridiculed? I'm curious.

Is it just for fun? The concepts offered? No different than learning a quick life hack that may or may not offer some benefit, somehow, someday?

I suppose, in short: are the ideas and concepts or beliefs expressed simply for entertainment or do they offer tangible benefit? And if so, what are these benefits that others can hope to (perhaps possibly) gain in their own life by embracing (or understanding)?

Specifically, how have they benefited you? What difference in your life has their been since their discovery? And, as a bonus, how can one be sure they weren't simply side effects of knowledge and life experience in general? :chin:

I will start with the quote I start my book
"
"Albert Einstein “The greatest illusion in this world is the illusion of separation.”

To be precise, he did not say that, but rather the following: “A human being is part of the whole we call the Universe—part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and his feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, which restricts us to our personal desires and to the affection of a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”"

Now this is the benefit, freedom from the illusion cast upon us by our own brains. What I said regarding space is true, the same goes for time and other claims I made. These things are not composed of what they constitute, colours, distances, time are illusions and today we can prove it by using science and logic. Absolutelly no reason not to do the same with philosophy when it has already been done in the past and was regarded as top tier theology by some.

By the way all your questions are off topic, I answered only because I said I will, please stay relevant to the original post. Im kinda uninterested in explaining whats the benefit when its obvious, we are all looking for the truth, some have decided, its impossible to convince them, however the rest may be interested in this idea.

"that which has no end"

There are numerous problems with the use of infinity here.

One is a number and infinity in maths is about large quantities of numbers, or divisions of numbers. Either very large, or very small, endlessly so. Whereas infinity in this sense is not saying anything about ‘1’, because anything other than one thing, number, isn’t one, infinitely so.

When we look at it in terms of spacial, or temporal ideas, spacetime and existence then other problems arise. Is this one existing thing, or potentiality, infinitely so, Infinitely one? Which is meaningless. Is it opposed to infinitely large (space), or duration, both of which have big logical inconsistencies and may be incoherent. In a way by saying it is infinite, you are suggesting it is infinitely large, so as to encompass an infinite, finite universe.

Whereas if it is outside space, outside time, the use of infinite becomes meaningless. It is simply a unity, oneness. There’s nothing infinite about that.

If it is a oneness, but with infinite potential, is that anymore a oneness, something outside of time and space? Because it has a very large set, of potentials, infinitely so.

Now if we consider it in a religious way, it makes more sense. But a much better word to describe this is eternity. Something which is endless, but not infinitely large, or infinitely temporal. But endlessly transcendent, or something.

One is a number and infinity in maths is about large quantities of numbers, or divisions of numbers. Either very large, or very small, endlessly so. Whereas infinity in this sense is not saying anything about ‘1’, because anything other than one thing, number, isn’t one, infinitely so. — Punshhh

One is a number, yet you cant see numbers and it is very likely if other sentient creatures exist on other planets they come up with the same foundation (numbers themselves). This means there is a common truth for us and them- numbers. When the ancient greeks used the word "Μονας" to say "One" they werent doing something randomly, this word literally means "Unique". The English word “one” traces back from Middle English oon, on, and oan to Old English ān, which comes from Proto-West Germanic *ain, itself from Proto-Germanic *ainaz, and ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European root *h₁óynos, all meaning “single” or “one.”

I have to quote myself once again:
"In physics and in mathematics, we do not measure things in themselves but the relationships and the properties that can be quantified. As in physics we compare equivalences of different objects through common measurable properties (e.g. mass or energy), so too in mathematics the concept of number does not concern the objects themselves but the abstract relations between them. I say that “One and one makes us one but two times” – a qualitative unity with quantitative multiplicity. Arithmetic does not describe objects but transformations and relations.

It is given for me that, based on logic, other beings sooner or later will discover numbers and their concepts. This common observation constitutes proof that universal truth is inscribed in the states. In other words, every question has one universally correct answer; however, the transfer of this concept into the perception of the observer is dynamic and depends on the context, the experience, and his consciousness. The truth does not change, but the subjective access to it."

Infinity in mathematics isn’t a really big number or just the result of dividing by zero. It’s the idea of ‘unboundedness’ or ‘endlessness",for any number you name, there’s always another number beyond it.

When we look at it in terms of spacial, or temporal ideas, spacetime and existence then other problems arise. Is this one existing thing, or potentiality, infinitely so, Infinitely one? Which is meaningless. Is it opposed to infinitely large (space), or duration, both of which have big logical inconsistencies and may be incoherent. In a way by saying it is infinite, you are suggesting it is infinitely large, so as to encompass an infinite, finite universe. — Punshhh

I did not say that it is infinitelly One, I said that the quality of infinite (which I defined earlier) is assigned to the same thing that has the quality of One (which I also defined) . See it like this: If the universe is all there is then what is the end of it? What would a limit to existence itself be? Non-existence? The universe does not have a limit besides its own geometry, meaning what you see as space is not actual space, because space may not exist in fact, what you witness is an internal relation. I would love to invite a physicist to the matter if you have one to further elaborate on this with a bit more detailed examples in physics.

Whereas if it is outside space, outside time, the use of infinite becomes meaningless. It is simply a unity, oneness. There’s nothing infinite about that. — Punshhh

Space and time are deterministic (ordered), quantifiable and exist only in relation to everything else (and also have two opposite ends-, e.g. Big bang-Big crunch) , contrary to that the One(as I express it in my book) is not possible to be measured because there is nothing else to be measured against(it is impossible to measure something without an external point of reference, any empirical internal subjective understanding we have is illusionary). Everything is infinite about this.


If it is a oneness, but with infinite potential, is that anymore a oneness, something outside of time and space? Because it has a very large set, of potentials, infinitely so.

The infinite potential arises from its definition as Zero, according to the zero energy universe hypothesis the total energy of the universe is zero, in simple terms this means we can take zero and transform it into any possible combination and/or value (however although this is true the way the ΙΕΡΑ ΤΕΤΡΑΚΤΥΣ (holly tetraktys) is formed is eternal- ask me about this if you are interested). This means any universe is possible, we dont require the storage of any information and we can create anything by just manipulating what we already have (unordered and unformed One Infinite Zero).

Now if we consider it in a religious way, it makes more sense. But a much better word to describe this is eternity. Something which is endless, but not infinitely large, or infinitely temporal. But endlessly transcendent, or something. — Punshhh

This is not exactly religious but it does contain Theology which is the basis of most religions that exist today(holly Trinity, the One and etc).


In ancient Greek, “apeíron” literally means “the boundless” or “the unlimited,” deriving from the negative prefix a- (“without”) and peîrar (“limit”), thus denoting that which has no boundaries or end. Anaximander posited apeíron as the primal archḗ of all things—immaterial, timeless, and indivisible—from which everything emerges and to which everything ultimately returns. Through its eternal motion, apeíron explains the birth of opposites (hot–cold, wet–dry) and the ongoing cycle of world creation and dissolution. By freeing philosophy from myth and divine intervention, the concept inaugurated abstract reasoning that deeply influenced the mathematical notion of infinity and redefined the metaphysical understanding of being in Plato and the Neoplatonists.