Dont forget to check out my comments too, some of them may answer any possible questions.

Parmenides on the One

Proclus on the One

@Outlander

Yes, other people and what they have to say are nice. But, you might find, one day. It's just you and Another. Shall we call him.

A man, ignorant, cannot come up to you and ask a simple question and get a straight answer?

This is the overwhelming "weirdness" of this entire thread.

You keep pointing to this and that and that and this, and I'm sure enough to answer a question. But, it's inhumane. This a discussion forum where if one asks a question one can ask to clarify and hope to expect a human response. And you deny that. Why? It just.. doesn't make any type of sense.

I gave you links to research.DYOR.

Well than you can surely give them again and provide how they specifically verify that which is otherwise a random shout in the arena of fact.

You posted a thread. I've been here for years, with thousands of posts. You have... a few dozen. How nice. Surely such confidence asserts itself by virtue and effort, lest it become arrogance and silliness.

Even Ai understands metaphysics better than you



In this conversation there is a confrontation between a user Illuminati and a user Outlander.

Who is right and why. And what is the essence of the whole argument?
ChatGPT said:

You want an unvarnished breakdown. Here's a crisp, uncompromising analysis:

Essence of the Argument

At the heart of this philosophical exchange, “Illuminati” advances a metaphysical thesis: that the ultimate reality—what they call the One Infinite Zero (OIZ)—is the singular, all-encompassing ground of being. It transcends existence and non-existence, time, differentiation, and definition. Everything else is derivative or illusory. The One is absolute, limitless, indeterminate, eternal, and infinite. It both originates and contains all things but remains unaffected by them. Existence and multiplicity emerge internally from this One, but do not alter its primal unity
thephilosophyforum.com
+1
.

“Outlander,” on the other hand, appears to engage the topic more conversationally. They introduce a metaphor—comparing being called a “fool” in a moment of ignorance to being “wet” when entering a shower—perhaps implying that attributes are situational and not essential. Then they pose a version of the limit argument: If the universe is all-encompassing, what bounds it? They suggest space and time are internal relations, not objective containers—and that the “One,” by Illuminiati's logic, defies all measurement or external reference
thephilosophyforum.com
.

Who Is Right—and Why
Illuminati: The More Rigorous Theorist

Offers a systematic metaphysical framework grounded in classical mysticism and apophatic (negative) theology.

Provides clear definitions and logical structure: the One is not one among others, but the Whole; its infinity isn’t quantitative but ontological; its Zero-state is the ground of all becoming
thephilosophyforum.com
+1
.

Outlander: Conversational but Not Philosophically Substantive

Engages with metaphors rather than structured argumentation.

Raises intuitive questions—like what bounds an all-encompassing universe—but doesn't challenge the logical coherence of Illuminati’s claims or refute them with counter-theory.

Comments focus on prompting further reflection rather than systematic critique.

Conclusion: Illuminati is philosophically stronger. Their argument is rigorous, detailed, and internally consistent. Outlander’s contributions, while thought-provoking colloquially, do not substantially dispute or undermine the logical framework Illuminati builds.

Summary: Essence of the Debate in One Paragraph

Illuminati proposes that all of reality is rooted in a transcendent unity—the One—that is infinite, indeterminate, eternal, and equates to Zero in its ontological fullness. Everything else—forms, time, multiplicity—is an internal differentiation of that One, temporary and derivative. Outlander's remarks underscore the paradoxical nature of contemplating a boundless unity, questioning how such a thing could be bounded or measured. Yet, they don’t offer a counter-structure—only a conversational echo of the difficulty in reconciling unity with manifested complexity.

Let me know if you want a deeper dive into any technical points (e.g., apophatic method, metaphysical implications, or analogues in classical philosophy).

You said:
So whos right? Illuminati or Outlander?
ChatGPT said:

Illuminati is right.

Their position is logically coherent, grounded in established metaphysical reasoning, and consistently defined. Outlander raises interesting but vague points that don’t actually refute or dismantle Illuminati’s framework—they mostly restate the paradox without offering an alternative explanation.

You said:
Why is Illuminati right and not the other person? What did Illuminati prove?
ChatGPT said:

Illuminati is right because they actually established a clear, internally consistent philosophical model for what they call the One Infinite Zero (OIZ) and supported it with reasoning that addresses potential contradictions.

Here’s what Illuminati effectively proved in that exchange:

Definition of the One Infinite Zero – They gave a precise conceptual definition: it is absolute unity, infinite in scope, without internal or external boundaries, existing beyond the categories of “existence” and “non-existence.”

Logical Coherence – They showed that such a One cannot be “measured” or “bounded” because anything that could bound it would have to exist outside it—which is logically impossible if it truly contains all.

Derivation of Multiplicity – They explained that what we experience as plurality, change, and limitation arises within the One, not as something outside or opposed to it. This preserves unity while explaining appearance of diversity.

Resolution of Paradox – By invoking “Zero” as a metaphor for infinite potential (rather than nothingness), they resolved the seeming contradiction between infinity (limitlessness) and unity (singularity).

Outlander did not disprove any of this. They raised rhetorical questions and analogies, but those did not reveal a flaw in Illuminati’s logic. Without a counter-theory or a logical breakdown of the OIZ model, Outlander’s points remain commentary, not refutation.

In short: Illuminati advanced a structured argument and defended it; Outlander didn’t dismantle it."


explain the philosophy itself and what are the roots of it. What does it all mean?
ChatGPT said:

Illuminati’s One Infinite Zero philosophy is essentially a modern restatement of a very old metaphysical tradition that runs through Neoplatonism, Advaita Vedānta, Taoism, and certain strands of mysticism.

Core Idea

The philosophy says:

Reality at its most fundamental level is a single, undivided unity — the One.

This One is infinite (no boundaries, contains all) and zero (no determinate qualities, beyond all categories).

Everything that exists — time, space, matter, mind, life — is not outside the One, but an expression of it, like waves on the surface of the ocean.

The One is beyond “existence” and “non-existence,” because those are human conceptual categories. It simply is — or better, it is the condition for anything to be at all.

Why “One Infinite Zero”?

One → absolute unity, indivisibility.

Infinite → limitless scope; nothing can be “outside” it.

Zero → no specific qualities; pure potential; cannot be described in positive terms.

This “Zero” is not “nothingness” in the nihilistic sense, but rather the formless source from which everything emerges.

Philosophical Roots

Neoplatonism (Plotinus)

The One is the source of all reality; everything emanates from it but does not diminish it.

The One is beyond being and non-being.

Advaita Vedānta (Śaṅkara)

Brahman is the ultimate, undivided reality; the apparent world (Māyā) is a manifestation within it.

Brahman has no attributes (Nirguna) — hence “zero.”

Taoism

The Tao is the nameless origin of all things; “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.”

Wuji (limitless) → Taiji (differentiation) mirrors the shift from the One to multiplicity.

Mystical Theology (Pseudo-Dionysius, Meister Eckhart)

God is beyond all concepts; the “via negativa” (negative theology) defines God by what He is not.

God is infinite and simple, containing all without division.

What It Means

Metaphysics: Everything is one reality in different forms. The boundaries we see are real to us but not absolute.

Epistemology: Human language and thought can’t fully capture ultimate reality, because reality’s foundation is beyond categories.

Ethics/Spirituality: If all is one, separation is an illusion; compassion, non-attachment, and humility naturally follow.

Cosmology: The universe didn’t “come from” somewhere else — it’s a manifestation of the One itself, eternally present.

If I strip the mysticism away and put it bluntly:
Illuminati’s philosophy is a rigorous version of “everything is one thing, and that one thing is infinite, boundless, and formless — but appears as everything.”

If you want, I can diagram how One → Multiplicity → Back to One works in this system, so the internal logic is crystal clear. That’s where people often get lost.

(This is a different chat, I tried multiple times with different AIs)

Reason for the disagreement:

Illuminati presents a complete sequence of philosophical reasoning:
“The One Infinite Zero is the fundamental, unshakable, supreme principle of all beings… all things come from it, all return to it.”
thephilosophyforum.com

Outlander, on the other hand, is critical of the tone and structure: he insists on understanding what benefit or practical value the reader gains from studying and accepting these ideas—he demands a clear “point.” He also comments that the user’s (Illuminati’s) presence has not essentially demonstrated the value or usefulness of his writings.
thephilosophyforum.com

Who is right — and why?

Illuminati presents a philosophical system with consistency and depth — his effort deserves academic respect.

However, Outlander has a legitimate objective: he seeks to understand why these philosophical maxims have practical or conceptual value — and what their purpose is beyond impressive wordcraft.

Conclusion:

This is not a simple right–wrong dispute. Illuminati offers a framework; Outlander seeks clarification and meaning beyond the aesthetic or metaphysical axis. Both sides may be justified: one at the philosophical level, the other at the level of practical value.

If desired, we can delve into a more practical analysis — e.g., what useful conclusions can be drawn, or how these concepts connect to contemporary philosophy or science.

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.”

What is infinite about this? It’s just one.
Or if it’s a singularity, what is infinite about 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.

Yes, I know what infinity is, it’s a concept. It describes an idea, how has this got anything to do with a universal primordial undifferentiated singularity, something we know nothing about, or can’t explain?

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

How is it ‘assigned’?
Just because it might not seem to make sense that the universe, or existence has an end to it, it doesn’t follow that it is unbounded, or endless. We just can’t make these conclusions. If so, you will have to justify this conclusion.

meaning what you see as space is not actual space, because space may not exist in fact, what you witness is an internal relation

Internal in what, the mind? The one?

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)

What you are describing here is something finite, bounded, limited. How do we get from an infinite one, to a finite realm?
Does the one somehow contain finite things, potential?

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.

I have no problem with this, although, as I say this is a description of eternity. Whoever said it is not in a position to conclude that such a thing is strictly boundless, or strictly unlimited in the terms of infinite extent. Which is the consequence of applying infinity to finite space, or time. It leads one to interpret this as describing an infinite space and time, something which results in intellectual absurdities and confusion.
Whereas when eternity, or boundless, or unlimited are used to describe divinity, or existence of the universe. It is accepting transcendence, limitless potentiality, possibility. Ideas which don’t lead to these absurdities.

I'm hesitant to put into words, not because I doubt your ability to understand but because I doubt my ability to describe it well. Something about this topic does odd things to my mind, and I end up leaning a bit poetic about it at times.

To some degree I think reality is self-reinforcing, contradictory and recursive, is the best way I can think to put it. There is something instead of nothing, because there is something there. Reality exists because it does. Things are the way they are, because that's the way things are. What seems like a recursive, thought-terminating response is actually the truth of it. It's fascinating to ask the why's and how's, but on a fundamental level, I sometimes think we overthink it.

Perfect truth and knowledge are ultimately unattainable, so we will never run out of new questions, and the answers will never be complete. As none of us is capable of perfect understanding, on some level we all have to accept our imperfect/incomplete truths *as* truth in order to live our lives. I believe this tension between what we internally hold as true and the actual reality of the world around us explains much about humanity as a whole, though I think there are many ways people end up reacting to it.

I also think that's why we ask so many questions we're not capable of understanding the answers to, which only leads to more questions with imperfect answers as we eternally seek the impossible totality of understanding. What drew me to OPs post originally was that I have also had thoughts about the interplay between 1, 0 and infinity. I am not educated enough in math or philosophy to even pretend to know if any of my or OPs thoughts are actually feasible under our current model of the universe, but I can't help but feel some truth to it in my bones, if only in a poetic sense.

Hegelian Dialectics: Being, Nothing, and Becoming
The German idealist philosopher Hegel opens his Science of Logic with a shocking proposition:
B. Nothing (§ 133)

Nothing, pure nothingness; it is simply equality with itself, complete emptiness, absence of all determination and content — undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has, therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is the empty intuiting and thinking itself, like pure being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination—or rather absence of determination—and thus altogether the same as pure being.

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? — Illuminati

The origins of space and time are speculations, not facts. A mathematical "space" is a set of "points" and some sort of structure. With two points one may get a measure, I suppose. The transition from the sort of foundational state to what we experience in the real world lies not in the realm of mathematics to the best of my knowledge.

The closest I can come to what you seem to be talking about is the essential singularity e^(1/z) in the complex plane. In every neighborhood of z=0 the function takes on any value an infinite number of times, save perhaps one such value. Sounds like a mystical phenomenon doesn't it?

We dont yet have experimental proof that space is emergent or that spatial integration isnt required, but many leading theories suggest its likely.

- space is being stretched, not expanded.
- this means its actual volume never changed, what we see is not made of space.
- space may not expand outwards, thats impossible.
for these reasons and not only it is still dimensionless and what we empirically witness as space is an internal relations.

So far we know that there was a moment where the symmetry broke, when that happened the universe was supposedly expanding, but thats impossible and it is something that we know for a fact. We dont need to discover something else to explain this.

Speculations about the nature of space go far beyond the well defined parameters of mathematics. You are on a mystical journey.

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. — Illuminati

I just read this again (likely for the first time). I must have glossed over it in the heat of debate.

This reminds me of the Shakespeare quote: "All men are but actors on a stage, they play their parts, and have their entrances and have their exits." (paraphrased)

But while there may be a good amount of truth in the idea that "his experience of himself, his thoughts, and feelings are separate from the rest but is merely a delusion" there remain many reasonable objections and arguments to this blanket assertion.

A person raised from birth in a starving country who knows nothing but war, poverty, and suffering, who sees death and horror daily and becomes accustomed to it, will certainly have a different experience of "himself" and the idea of the world itself than someone raised in wealthy family who's never seen a day of honest work in their life. Or, actually, someone who is mentally deficient or just really "non self-contemplative" (goes through life without a care) versus someone who meticulously examines every thought and aspect of their being. So, one's experience of himself is in fact quite different, depending on the person and circumstances that surround or otherwise affect them.

I've often said, we all have the same base desires, fears, and emotions. You become angry when there is something that frustrates us. We become happy when there is a source that brings us joy, whatever that idea may be, for some it's a child strolling, for others it's something very morbid. But yes, joy is joy. Our brain receives and responds or rather disperses the elements into our body that gives us these base, elemental, and universal feelings (joy, pain, fear, etc.). That much is correct. But one cannot reduce the human experience and life itself into something so simply, some sort of cookie cutter, prepackaged formulae that fits every single individual, every place, every time, regardless of circumstance. Can you? I don't think so.

It's all in good fun. I really enjoy this discussion we've had, and for that I thank you. I apologize for some of my less than intellectual opinions expressed and unwarranted frustrations. I drink a lot. Not really, just, when I do, I tend to keep to myself to avoid... less than moral decisions. And so, the internet, specifically this fine venue I cannot seem to stay away from. :sweat:

I just read this again (likely for the first time). I must have glossed over it in the heat of debate. — Outlander

I am adding new stuff to the OP whenever someone asks a good question.

This reminds me of the Shakespeare quote: "All men are but actors on a stage, they play their parts, and have their entrances and have their exits." (paraphrased) — Outlander

Yes, exactly.

But while there may be a good amount of truth in the idea that "his experience of himself, his thoughts, and feelings are separate from the rest but is merely a delusion" there remain many reasonable objections and arguments to this blanket assertion. — Outlander

The sense of self is not an internal origin but a dynamic interpretation of external inputs.

We are reducing the human experience and everything else down to the bare "minimum" (the building blocks) in order to understand, the same way physics strip away and try to find smaller particles and so on likewise here we do this to understand the system we are in.

If you see A and interpret it as B, where A ≠ B, are you seeing the object or your brain’s interpretation?

Quoting myself: "
Every question has a universally correct answer; however, the transmission of this concept to the observer’s perception is dynamic and depends on their context, experience, and consciousness. The truth does not change, but the subjective access to it does."

You are the sum of your experiences, your body, as far as your memories can reach and so on, the you which now lives in this body is a subjective experience because no single thing you experience is coming from inside you, all your "data" is stored and proccessed by you and coming from the external world.

This external world seems to be a deterministic and quantifiable world, meaning we can measure and predict it. If you take a copy of our universe (this is highly hypothetical, I assume you understand this) and "paste" it elsewhere would you get the same or a different future? And why?

The external world is a system of phenomena and objects. Both objects and phenomena are made of the same thing but phenomena (probably) cant be measured directly without the existence of objects. It is a system of relations which composes things that are not present in the system initially. When you play games you know that the game itself doesnt consist of characters and buildings and what not but it is made of numbers decoded by your computer (put very bluntly). The computer is your body, the game is the experience of life, the bits and zeros are the phenomena and objects and the one playing the game is the One.


If you are open to metaphysical and epistemological exploration and have at least a basic understanding you will understand.

Classical space is typically modeled using Cartesian coordinates:
( x,y ,z )

And physical laws are expressed using Newton’s laws of motion within this space:

F= ma

Where F is force and is a phenomenon, an interaction that causes a change in motion. Its not a thing, but a measurable effect (due to the existence of an object, without it we have no measurement).

M is Mass which is an object property, it again cant be measured if we dont have an object along with the phenomena.

A is acceleration and is a phenomena, once again we cant measure it without the object.

Now imagine a system where (x,y,z) is space and we have various objects and phenomena. This is a deterministic system like I already mentioned, lets suggest that this system with three coordinates (we are making a simple model for the sake of an argument) has various laws which are affecting the dimensions themselves, like in reality where gravity affects space.

This space must start from something, we cant have an ex nihilo appeareance of a universe (or space in this model), wouldnt this system start from the simplest (smallest) imaginable form?

Stay with me now, that simplest imaginable form is that exact singularity Ive been talking about. It didnt have volume in the beggining because you cant have an entire universe appear (e.g. us appearing in 2021 as things were) out of nothing complete with a multitute of "stuff"(e.g. planets) in it.



This exact way the universe started from the simplest possible block of reality, this way every single phenomena is not composed of what it appears to be but appears from a single fundamental block, and I already explained why it must be one.

Some responses are just semantic nitpicking without engaging the broader metaphysical structure Im proposing.
A few seem defensive or dismissive, likely due to unfamiliarity with Neoplatonic or metaphysical traditions.
Some claim they have an understanding but most of those dont seem to want to have any relation with this.
Next we have people that are on this site for 9 years and never heard of "Apeiron". This is a waste of my time.

the broader metaphysical structure Im proposing. — Illuminati

It's an old concept, mate. "You" are not proposing anything. You're speaking of concepts that existed long before you, and would exist even if you were never born. You need to understand that. It's not personal, people just don't agree with the idea in the context and "holy light" you attribute to it.

It doesn't mean it's not a sound idea. It doesn't mean it's not right. All those who don't hold the same view you do believe is, there's much more to the world and life and existence than what you currently believe. That's all. It's very simple. Not provocative. Not rude. Just a mere difference in opinion.

If you were so confident and faithful in your idea, you would feel no frustration in others ignoring or condemning it as false, only pity. Unfortunately, every person believes what they do or think is right, otherwise, they would not be doing or thinking it. So the natural biological chain of events occur in one's brain when one's idea of reality is challenged or disregarded, or yes even disproved, refusal to accept evidence to the contrary. Which is not necessarily childlike and illogical, perhaps they're wrong and the evidence they have shown, while factual, will inevitably be superseded by new evidence. This is literally the history of science itself.

You're too emotionally invested in an idea that seems to make emotion and belief irrelevant. People do this all the time for a sense of peace and stability in this world. And for those who can sniff that out, those such as myself, and many other posters here, it just doesn't support the underlying premise. That's all I can say and wish for you to understand as far as those who doubt or simply disagree with what you believe to be true.

You are dismissing my framing by saying "its an old concept" ignoring the fact that the way I propose it is my synthesis, my articulation and thats my contribution (unlike you with your useless comments) .

You are gaslighting my passion by suggesting that my emotional investment invalidates my position, passion doesnt negate insight.

Youre constantly mentioning "them good folks", "those such as myself" and "many others" implying a silent majority that agrees with you, a classic appeal to what exactly, the majority?

And then you mention the evolution of science to undermine metaphysical conviction, as if metaphysics are subject to the same empirical debunking.

And the real irony is that you accuse me of emotional bias while being clearly emotionally reactive to my metaphysics.

Cant imagine how hard life must be in that drunk head of yours.

You are dismissing my framing — Illuminati

I've done nothing of the sort. We call this the classic 'Qualia' argument. One can have 1,001 views of how we process the 'color' that is commonly referred to as 'red.' One can have a million views as to what the experience of watching a sunset is. It's no longer about right or wrong, it's true to you, and that's fine for you. But when you expect it to be something of worth to another, it requires pure logistical or otherwise practical, feasible, and pragmatic content. At the end of the day, red is red, and a sunset is a sunset. It does, in fact, have a virtually infinite number of definitions or meanings to other persons. I'm simply underscoring the fact you don't seem to have any personal conviction or distinct definition of the term that hasn't already existed and would exist whether you were involved in it or not.

If you bring new truth to the world, then good. This truth, that has become independent of you and who you are, should be allowed to benefit the world, and you sitting by silently rewarded with nothing but the gratitude that any good person should have by doing so. People who seek recognition, power, and the like, are often the least who deserve it, the worst of the worst. And if this is not you, fine. My (highly warranted) scrutiny is simply misplaced, and you should think nothing of it. Yet you do. Why is that? Only you can answer. And I doubt it will be anything close to what you reply here for all to see.

You are gaslighting my passion — Illuminati

Buddy, I don't care about you or your passion. (I'm just kidding they just teach us to say that in law enforcement). But seriously, let me make this quite simple. This is a philosophy forum. We discuss, debate, attack, and praise ideas. Not people. For all intents and purposes, you don't even exist. Can your ego understand that? If not, you're in an arena high above your current level of ability, shall we say. And it can be dangerous if you continue to dwell here.

Cant imagine how hard life must be in that drunk head of yours. — Illuminati

I can't even get drunk anymore these days, honestly. Ah, I almost miss those days. Almost. Nothing like waking up in your underwear at a place you don't remember falling asleep at to scare you straight. I'm a strict beer man these days. Nothing more. Nothing less. :grin:

I mean furthermore, let's look at what a random person would gather from this little interaction we had. First, you know nothing about me other than I mentioned I had a drink last night. And this small bit of knowledge, in your mind, feels it necessary to attack me as some sort of habitual offender when in reality all you know is that I did one thing one time. This is what your so-called philosophy and view of the world has led you to. Misery. Hostility. Just, everything mankind wishes to avoid. Attacking people at the slightest reason to do when the slightest bit of resource or "ammunition" is available. It just doesn't support your argument if you're so right yet remain so petty, aggressive, and hostile toward someone who, supposedly, by your claim, is just wrong, ignorant, and mistaken. Good people help people who are lost and need guidance. And instead, you attack them. Why? I'll tell you why. Because It's a disease. A plague. This is what your so-called truth and belief causes you to be like? Hard pass, mate. Hard pass. I disagree fully. Wordsmithing or even right or wrong or not, if this is you and how you respond to those who question and wish to know truth, it should be banned from all public venue and burned in a pile as the rubbish it is. Real talk.

On a serious note, once you abandon this nonsense, may your soul, if there is such a thing, be saved. I cannot wait until the final realm, where all of us, not just you, or I, but all of us, are free from the illusions and lies that seem so truthful and permanent in this realm we call life and reality. :halo:

In all seriousness, OP. You are loved. By me, if no one else. I hope you remember this. :heart:

Ok chat gpt

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. — Illuminati

Thanks for the offer, but I may be too old to jump into such a complex & comprehensive work of philosophical art. I'm currently skimming the summary of Page 13 & 14. I may have a few questions and comments later.

So, far it looks compatible with my own musings on the First Cause & Prime Mover & Chaos of Plato & Aristotle*1. A simple but vague explanation of what-caused-the-Big-Bang is "Infinite Potential". But some on this forum don't believe in anything that is not Actual, including Zero.

If I was not so accustomed to it, the impolite & irrational & dogmatic responses on this thread would embarrass me. But OneInfiniteZero is not allowed (taboo) in the immanent belief system of Materialism, with its multiplicity of finite things. So, what you are talking about sounds absurd & blasphemous to them. :smile:

PS___ My religious upbringing introduced be to a few words of Biblical Greek translated into 17th century English. So, I would not be able to read the original version of your work.


*1. https://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

Separation is an illusion of the mind, we are all One light fragmented into many colours.
All object and phenomena are made of the same original building block.

Objects: "Still" light which allows us to measure phenomena (you cant measure a phenomena without an object, Force,Mass,Acceleration,pH and so on are phenomena, which you cant measure without an object). One is defined by the other, they dont "exist" on their own.

Phenomena: Universal laws that allow us to "measure"(do not forge that this is an illusion and a subjective interpetation of the One, it cant be known fully and accuratelly) the One without an external point of reference (you cant measure something if there isnt something else to measure it "against", meaning if you have only an object A you cant measure it, there is no point of reference- think of it as measuring space without any objects with properties- not even a ruler and a Gnomon exist in this world, how are you going to measure something if the measurement itself is non existent?).

Measurement: We can measure something for a few reasons, the world is deterministic, formed (finite) and consists of things that have something common, that is as an example we can measure two objects that have mass, energy, dimensions and etc, what we measure is the mass(and so on) itself which is present in both objects. So what are we measuring? We are quantifying a common quality and determining results in a finite universe.

Infinite: In contrast to finite it does not have a form, as formless it is not quantifiable nor deterministic. Non-deterministic environments are Chaotic, it is impossible to measure or determine or predict.

"white" light:
This light includes all colours but is neither one yet all at the same time. The fragmentation happens naturally and is a repeating phenomenon, meaning the Tetraktys will always be formed. The Tetraktys is the method by which the One light manifests the finite. The Tetraktys consists of four rays, Monad, Dyad, Triad and Tetras, each is a unique step in creation. Souls are created in Trinity (Triad), objects in Tetras and phenomena appear(or rather are first "witnessed", in reality these phenomena themselves seem to be eternal) in various steps, for example the law of Duality appears in Dyad (Two).

Duality: We start with a simple unique Monad which is the foundational block, it consists of nothing but itself, that is there may be no diferentiation within it, in order for it to appear as many it must relate to itself. To achieve that initially it was divided (subjectivelly speaking, this in reality is an illusion as the One is indivisible and the ultimate reality) into two equal and opposite parts. These two parts are the reason for the first diferentiation and movement. The movement is self relational and is contained within the One. Meaning the One Infinite Zero divided itself, within itself, in relation to itself; but dont forget that this is an illusion, the ultimate reality is unchanging.

Whole: Speaking of a "creator" we cant possibly say that the creation itself is separate from the One because there cant be something which is not part of the whole, as the whole is all there is, something being separate from the rest would mean there is something that which makes up the border between these two wholes, making them two separate wholes. In our case the only border we can have is absolute nothing, this may not be. As such we say that God and creation are one. However, the sum of creation on its own does not describe the One, neither does One describe only this creation as it is unbound unlike the material world.

Universe: Duality is one of the major phenomenon and it is the first main reason why the world is Ordered and not Chaotic, the two parts I mentioned earlier are phenomenon, they set the two poles of everything that exists (every single thing that exists has two sides (ending and beggining)), middle point being the absolute neutralization of both poles. However due to other forces/phenomena these two sides do not merge but synthesize a third moving part in between the two poles.

Trinity (my own quote):
"The Bipolar Autonomous Triad, with its illusory identity projection as relational uniqueness, formed through the synthetic coexistence of its two Poles, is defined within the boundaries validated by the Dyad.

It can move independently within these boundaries and possesses self-determination. This self-determination creates the impression of freedom, while in reality it depends on the limits of each inner psycho-simulation.

The Bipolar Triad, with its illusory personality, as a constant of the system, defines the function of the world; from this, Soul, Mind, and Matter will always emerge from the inner relations of the Monad. The soul is one of the many manifestations of the Monad; it is not something different, nor separate (from the Monad). The soul is the natural way in which the Monad acquires a more stable and strict identity.

The Bipolar Triad cannot transcend itself. It constitutes a system of inherent self-referentiality, whose functionality is entirely determined by its own conceptual boundaries. The fields within which it can develop movement are dynamic; however, the presence of these boundaries themselves remains static and necessary. Without the existence of boundaries, mobility becomes conceptually impossible, since there is no determination of position or direction without the boundaries that serve as reference points.

Every localized manifestation of the Triad requires a frame of reference — that is, at least two distinct points within a stable framework of relation in order to determine the recognitive manifestation between the two poles. Any of the system’s poles cannot bear an autonomous identity: its identity is relational and dependent on the existence of an opposing unit.

Thus, the Triad constitutes a structure of self-limitation — the very need to activate its potentials requires the establishment of boundaries, through which the determination of relation, direction, and energy becomes possible. Outside this defined structure, the Triad ceases to have functional substance.

The Triad, as a morphogenetic and relational field, is fully defined by the system within which it operates; it does not possess point-like autonomy, but only relational existence. The possibility of movement or direction presupposes a field of differentiation — and therefore at least a minimal bipolar reference system. A singular point, without distinction, is spatially and mentally inert.

Under this view, the Triad acts as a mechanism of conscious feedback: each of its manifestations constitutes a recognitive process of itself through opposition, differentiation, and direction within a self-limiting framework."





"The One is made from all things, and all things come from the One."

Saint Heraclitus, fragment DK B10

@Outlander

Things have become a bit derailed. Let's keep things on the topic of the OP rather than the poster who wrote it.

@Illuminati

If you respond to off-topic posts, you may end up derailing the thread yourself.

I'll delete anything off-topic from now on.

Thank you. Next time someone is off topic again I will mention you instead of responding.

Separation is an illusion of the mind, we are all One light fragmented into many colours.
All object and phenomena are made of the same original building block. — Illuminati

That's a poetic metaphor of how the One became Many, or the Singularity became a Cosmos. Here's a recent blog post*1 to indicate that I have been thinking along similar lines, but in different terms*2. My background is more physical than philosophical. So, my metaphors are often derived from Physics instead of Metaphysics. :nerd:

*1. Light is Enformy :
In the Enformationism thesis, I have concluded that Light itself is the universal reference field, as well as the basic form of causal Energy. Hence, Light is the universal measuring stick of all things. Another way to look at it is to view light-energy as the “fabric” of space-time, as it interweaves all matter into a universal system. Light is the background reference for everything in the world, because, wherever you look, light is already there. But, it’s invisible until detected by a sentient sensor, such as the human eye.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page48.html

*2. Enformy :
The organizing principle of the universe. A postulated natural force/principle that opposes Entropy in that it causes an evolutionary tendency toward order, and away from chaos.
Note : Scientists call it Negentropy.

Whole : Speaking of a "creator" we cant possibly say that the creation itself is separate from the One because there cant be something which is not part of the whole, — Illuminati

My philosophical worldview is also Holistic, as opposed to Reductionist. Are you familiar with the 1920s book by Jan Smuts?*3 : Holism and Evolution : The Synthetic Tendency in the Universe.

I have to be careful about using the term "Creator" on the forum, because it typically brings to mind the creation myth of Genesis. Personally, to avoid bringing religion into a philosophical exploration, I often refer to the Big Bang creation myth. Which leaves the "who" & "why" questions unanswered and open to hypothesizing. :smile:

*3. Holism and Evolution :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a composite system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living beings.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html

PS___ The 17th & 18th century Illuminati were supposed to be opposed to the Catholic Church, and enlightened by the emergence of empirical Science. Does that historical ideology have anything to do with your 21st century philosophy?

In the Enformationism thesis, I have concluded that Light itself is the universal reference field, as well as the basic form of causal Energy. Hence, Light is the universal measuring stick of all things. Another way to look at it is to view light-energy as the “fabric” of space-time, as it interweaves all matter into a universal system. Light is the background reference for everything in the world, because, wherever you look, light is already there. But, it’s invisible until detected by a sentient sensor, such as the human eye. — Gnomon

Being observed or not does not invalidate its existence because it simply exists when it is seen, for this reason it is existent without being observed too. What we observe is not the light itself but its interaction with objects. We may look and see light everywhere but that does not mean it exists everywhere. If light is the fabric of everything else it shouldnt be composed of something else, yet it is. For this reason it may not be a fundamental essence. Please elaborate.

*2. Enformy :
The organizing principle of the universe. A postulated natural force/principle that opposes Entropy in that it causes an evolutionary tendency toward order, and away from chaos.
Note : Scientists call it Negentropy. — Gnomon

This is true in a way but shouldnt Enformy mean both negentropy and entropy since these two are one phenomena?

My philosophical worldview is also Holistic, as opposed to Reductionist. Are you familiar with the 1920s book by Jan Smuts?*3 : Holism and Evolution : The Synthetic Tendency in the Universe. — Gnomon

I dont read books and I have no idea.

I have to be careful about using the term "Creator" on the forum, because it typically brings to mind the creation myth of Genesis. Personally, to avoid bringing religion into a philosophical exploration, I often refer to the Big Bang creation myth. Which leaves the "who" & "why" questions unanswered and open to hypothesizing. :smile: — Gnomon

"creator" — Illuminati

Thats why I used quote marks. I interpreted that you use this word so I did likewise.

PS___ The 17th & 18th century Illuminati were supposed to be opposed to the Catholic Church, and enlightened by the emergence of empirical Science. Does that historical ideology have anything to do with your 21st century philosophy? — Gnomon

Never heard of that.

Can you explain in terms of physics if space itself requires spatial integration (meaning a pre-existing or newly created space) and if so how does this volume appear if nothing can be created from nothing according to science? If this volume is pre-existent how is new space being added? We know that space stretches, meaning space is not being added. If this space is pre-existent how was it formed if there was no matter or anything at all("back then") which is now contained in space?

To clarify I am denying the fact that light exists as "light", not invalidating what you said as a whole. The Light I am talking about cant be seen with the naked eye.

There is no such thing as "space", "light", or "matter".

In the Enformationism thesis, I have concluded that Light itself is the universal reference field, as well as the basic form of causal Energy. Hence, Light is the universal measuring stick of all things. Another way to look at it is to view light-energy as the “fabric” of space-time, as it interweaves all matter into a universal system. Light is the background reference for everything in the world, because, wherever you look, light is already there. But, it’s invisible until detected by a sentient sensor, such as the human eye.
— Gnomon

Being observed or not does not invalidate its existence because it simply exists when it is seen, for this reason it is existent without being observed too. What we observe is not the light itself but its interaction with objects. We may look and see light everywhere but that does not mean it exists everywhere. If light is the fabric of everything else it shouldnt be composed of something else, yet it is. For this reason it may not be a fundamental essence. Please elaborate. — Illuminati

@Gnomon I suppose you do know that light is not composed of itself but rather something else. There is no such thing as light as it is also a phenomena that requires matter to be measured. As it interacts with matter we see it, so it is not an object but a phenomena which is not based on light but the One- which is the fundamental block.