Reciprocality

You somehow realize that beliefs are always though in various ways empty, that they are a minimal effort of survival. That pretty much nothing is the way it seems, and ultimately in no particular way at all, therefore. That equations are equivocations, and that substance/attribute theory is the closest you get to a consistent meta-model of mind, that instead of adding things together you subtract things from necessary unity, such that instead of saying 0.5+0.5=1 you end up only saying that without a whole there are no halves, and that everything of consciousness (say a duck) is thereby a fraction of it, and that without the duck there would non the less be something whole. To say that the duck is an accident of what it inheres in, or to which it is subsistent. You also realize that thoughts subsist, even though they are synthetic and pure imagination. Synthetic subsistence implies consciousness as an absolute, and so to what you are asking I answer that the ultimate goal of mind is to find the essential subsistent attributes of the substance consciousness, if you can. Time, Space, Causality, Empirical intuition, Will and Pure analytic mathematics/logic seems all to be THE essence of consciousness, none of which are mere representations of it but actually it. The best theory on how these essential ingredients are combined will also be the best way trough which to think, though it must always be understood that we retrospectively combine them imperfectly, and are therefore building a philosophical architecture instead of speaking absolute truth. This combination is a representation of something mystical, this architecture is a representation of something beyond ourself, I think. I also think that this rationalism is a cosmological and absolute necessity, an essence of existence itself. This which is beyond ourself are typically recognized by various people and doctrines from Purple to Turquoise as God, Synthetic A Priori, Subconscious, Nothingness, Oblivion, Death, Unconscious, Materiality, Truth, Heaven, The thing in itself, "contents" of intuition, Noumena, absolute will or "something from nothing". Edit: And by the skeptics in general this which is beyond ourself are recognized as a manifold of imagined material possibility, how they go about projecting themselves into the world they are supposedly skeptical of as a foundation for its possibilities is the biggest hoax and I would argue the most extreme case of mental gymnastics recorded in history. Don't be a skeptic, though learn everything you can from them.

Then I would re invent half the old laws.

Given that something takes the form it needs to since nothing more than necessary takes form. And that every form takes a certain direction and that direction is defined by the form. How then can necessary forms be accidents to the ultimate direction, if not by a will that is dual to them both? And so without no will neither comes intention, to which then we would be a necessary accident, so then we are an extreme kind of absolute being. So then our lives are an end in itself and this actually all there will be to us. So then there is an emptiness lacking in the cosmological scale we are every day ruining by at all being, and so my existential question then is regarding this to which we are an opposite and seemingly emergent of: what is it in itself and what is the absolute variation of things that can become its opposite, and so regarding these how alone are we in our universe? It really should not be possible that we are at all, given this I take it that there will always be something and that what seems like nothingness is actually a positive notion, a negation on top of a thing. Well then the will is emergent and imposed in its power by that which it is emergent of so to be by some plain love radically reduced in its power to do harm, and so then of what else than perfection are we? Extreme diversity, minimal effort.

Nothing is complete bullshit, or rather, complete bullshit has no appearance and is merely an empty hypothesis. Humans make two kinds of connections, either it is particular or universal. To claim that astrology is complete bullshit is to claim that a particular connection is a universal non-connection and somehow therefore also a particular non-connection. But if I claim that my month of conception correlates with strawberry eating on Tuesdays then I have made a connection necessarily, and so it can not be complete bullshit. The problem we have is that we think that if something is not universable then it is bullshit, when the precise opposite is the truth, which does not make universals invalid. It is because it is not universally valid (that people born in October eats more strawberry on Tuesdays than everyone not born in October) that the particular connection once drawn is valid, valid in particular, it is even valid in particular when it is delusional in general. People are not capable to distinguish between universal and particular for the same reason they think the world revolves around them, that luck will come in their favor, that coincidence implies higher meaning/gods will/repetition or that correlation means causation. It is impossible to make a connected non-connection, therefore no connections are complete bullshit, in fact the more particular a connection is the smarter one must be to identify likely reasons for it, the more variables there will be on the way there and ultimately the more you would be forgiven for considering it total nonsense. Delusion is an intricate melody of logical composition, paradox is the love for its repetition.

"What is happening right now, like what is this exact fucking moment? it is LITERALLY there. RIGHT NOW! THIS!?" This question from your original post assumes that universal existence can be equated with something in essential and particular in it, it is a from of absurd essententialism. "Why isn't nothing possible ? Why would there be stuff ..?Why do you think the existence of something is necessary?" I do not think that something must necessarily exist, I know. If something can be at all that means it can not be taken away, for if it could be taken away then it could also never have been. Your problem is that you think that everything beyond presence is nothingness, and that nothingness is potentially something, that existence can negate itself every time a second goes by. Instead, again, you invent the idea of negation after first having been imposed by something, this imposition and your essential nature of emptiness are equal to the other. You can consider them to be mutually generative. This emptiness does not negate the things that occurs by means of it and with it, obviously. That we are wondering how it is all possible can be satisfied (even though your formulation of the question makes little sense), but that does not change the proclivity for wonder itself, and so now I ask why everything is the way it is and not merely why it is at all. It is here that one encounter self reference problems, any honesty here implies a teleological theory. You end up asking not only "why am I the way I am" but rather "why is what I am precisely the way it had to be". At this point you may discover determinism, which is a perfect theory when you are limited by one linearity and are only thinking retrospectively. But you will also discover that the future is always mystical in its direction, that everything is both similar and different, and that only will is of the nature that could imply altercation. Here you see that the will is only a consistent theory in a given time frame if it is ANTICIPATED for the future, and never reduced into a theory of what were already existent or of the memories of the past, and that the only way one could have both determinism and will is in an infinite manifold of universes of which oneself is merely singular. The synthesis says that one goes trough this infinite manifold every day, and that everything which preceded therefore were totally determined. What were once a contradiction becomes the very glue itself. All this is implied and almost self argued by taking the idea of the will seriously.

Causation is necessary and everywhere in/by us. Causation is a sensibility. It is therefore by means of causation (subsistent to it) that we create an idea of independent causation, this idea is empty of its object. The idea that an independent universe has a first cause is an empty idea for this reason, as in pure speculation. It is pure projection, something must not at all precede something else in some independent timespace, instead infinity and its expressions end up reasoning that something can at all be independent of something else. And if something were truly independent of our consciousness then why would it correspond with anything in that which it is independent of? The answer here is typically god.

@Someone here Infinite regress is only a meaningful idea when you assume nothing to be a possibility. Actuality therefore proves infinite regression to be impossible. There does not have to be a first cause if there is anything at all, first something is actual and then potentiality inheres in what is actual, You mention Aristotle, well this is an idea by him.

If all that is east is east of west then of what is the most east west? (what is the most east west of) This is analogous to your question, in that it imagines a possibility range that necessarily remains empty.

@Someone here Only in assuming that existence is a possibility that is actualized by some cause can you consider that question (of why there is something rather than nothing) meaningful. What I say is that this assumption is itself absurd, which is affirmed when you realize that the present moment in being at all, negates nothingness. Which means there had to be something, the answer to your question is of necessity, there necessarily were something.

@Someone here Everything that I wrote were to shine light on how precisely that question itself is absurd, and why it is asked.

We can imagine away everything trough our faculty for negation, except existence. This then is found absurd when one expect to be able to imagine away anything. It is perhaps this that we expect to do.

I have been were I think you are now tens of thousands of times, and every time I speak about it I indeed get the sense that the respondents are robots. Though I would word it a little differently, in that I reject that something should at all be possible. Absurdism in general finds the human tendency to seek meaning in things absurd when it does not find it, I consider it absurd that we actually can find anything at all. It is precisely because we seek the possibility of things that we encounter error when it comes to existence itself, in that we can only find it necessary, and so it is the question of its possibility that is the absurd one.

This globe fits billions of people, to what end is it good that everyone is interconnected, is it sustainable? If humans never even had the option to intermingle between cultures that would probably be for the best, in which case we would have far less power, in which case we would have far inferior technology, evolve in ourself and not so much as an instrument to something else, be far less nihilistic by how we now perceive ourself proportional to how much bigger humanity is than us, and thereby how little effect we have on otherness. In the short time frame in which we virtue signal our minimal care for anything that extends beyond ourself just a little we will surely open our heart for some multiculturalism, but would it be good in the end? It is too late to put the brakes on global economy, for this reason we are destined to end with a global power, if such a power were mono cultural then I find it hard to see how it would not end up exploitative. Is multiculturalism bad? .. If it is a human conclusion, its outcomes distributes power far more equally than its alternatives and humans end up capable of moving beyond apathy and nihilism and the anarchy which follows then I would consider it an instrumental good, our next step in cultural evolution will be externally antithetical and confrontational, that is when we have evolved beyond our revisionist postmodern internal antithesis phase. At a cosmological scale I think there are potentials hidden in this universe that only a sustainable multicultural synergistic global power can reach and make good use of, I think there is just as much something out there in a possible future that pulls us towards some pretty neat actualization, as there are events of the past that has pushed us where we are.

I have not listened to this video but I will say what I think anyway, if you give stat X their context x and give some stat Y some context y then you will necessarily at some point begin seeing nothing short of bifurcation like on a tree if it were portrayed on a fancy 2d diagram. meta statistics would be emergent by mere law of scarcity. the question is how well we can hypothesize or predict how it intersects before it does, and thereby define its rules instead of exposing them.

@JuliusCaesar I must add though that it is less because of the logical range of the word lying that it would be coping to spy in general, and more so the logical range of coping which makes spying to cope. It would be reasonably implied by my original statement that the deceptive nature primarily concerns oneself, and not particular kinds of foes.

It is destructive for the job, which could be destructive on the self. Often and in the long run I think honesty would not be self destructive, which non the less is so shortly after. If your question are following your own line of reasoning and responds adequately to my statement it would be to have the job as a spy to begin with which were the coping mechanism, in which case I believe if one were to dig that yes coping there would often be at the bottom, as the statement implies. In this sense they would do what is necessary to cope, and so indirectly yes, though merely in general.

@JuliusCaesar Now this is an analytic statement, it is true necessarily and not much of a question for this reason. This though I can not make sense of. That would be a coping mechanism, especially if it is done as you say "deliberately". Well that would be a good idea, especially if the act contained deceptive word salad.

Arrival, Interstellar, Mr Nobody, Inception, Spider Man No Way Home, Marvel Endgame, Harry Potter Prisoner from Azkaban, Passenger, Wall-E and The Prestige. All these except HP are Sci-fi, most are Time Themed and if you are like me you enjoy the hundred of ways everything becomes absurd as soon as time is interfered with. Most of these movies also include VERY hard moral or life changing dilemmas.

It is emergent on top of something beyond reason, a mystical independent thing we can not say anything of other than in negative terms. When something is emergent of something else it is impossible to find the emergence in that by which it is emergent of, and so you can at best expose the emergence itself retrospectively but never in particulars, only in universals. And here experience must therefore be the only possible answer to the how, which means there is no how. Retrospectively there is a clear logic to the how in the mere sense that some things would be impossible in mind without other things in mind, such as time and space is necessary for causation, or that causation is necessary for self, or that self is necessary for youtube. Simply put.

Good job, lets disagree on words, avoid entertaining the alternative definition, get stuck in semantics and be happily stubborn. Why not, what are words

We can not know that simultaneiety is required for consciousness to extend beyond what we call ourself (or to the "other side", which non the less is not contained in our idea of other side). It may be that simultaneity is the wrong idea, and that in some other way there is otherness.

If a distinction requires time to be thought then it is necessarily improper, as only proper distinctions are drawn from an identity both parts share, or a convergence for short. Not only must a distinction imply convergence, but there are no convergence without distinction, and therefore all proper distinctions are perfect and self evident. The question is how lost in translation those distinctions are, how improper and linearly they are drawn. This implies that convergence of proper distinctions are not imagined, but are instead foundational for imagination the way empirical sensations such as a low frequency sound are foundational for the equivalent in the inner minds ear.

When people believe that there is something particular outside their consciousness that is an empty belief, typically formed by reason. We can not know what something outside this consciousness is like, for it requires us to believe in it when we form a synthetic judgement of it constituting reason. This does not mean that there is nothing outside us, it means that if there is such a thing we must be empty of it in particular, and consequently that we can be fooled in thinking there is no such thing. Yet our existence implies that something is necessary and nothing an impossibility, in this sense whatever is beyond us is also necessarily like us. Edit: added particular first statement.

If we consider it empirical everything which is of the senses such as light or salt flavour, then what is considered is not the means by which we reference what is considered, it is rather a weak magnitude of the same thing. You may distinguish the weak and strong magnitude of light as imagination and reality, yet both are equally real in consciousness for the simple reason that they are at all in consciousness. And so you begin with asking an absurd question, unless what is real is considered more than what is in consciousness. Perhaps imagination is instead only synthetic intuition (something new and creative more than a composition of empirical magnitudes), and not merely an inner extension of outer sensation. Is it then real? Well you will probably not find an equivalent of this thought in the forest or between rocks, but if that is what is required for something to be real then what is the question even worth? There is apodictic certainty either way, and so the actual question must be whether there is an absolute mind or reality in which your own thoughts are more than your own only, for only in this way can a question of "is it real, is it truth" have meaning. Our reference of things will be an imaginary counterpart to the referenced, containing the same identity. This then can be an exposition of what imagination means, you are imagining the essence of some stone by maintaining its identity without looking at it, if the stone were originally imagined then you would have to invent a second order category for the imagination of its essence, and you would equate empirical intuition with fantasy. You should be high on drugs in doing so, you are also making language ridiculously complex if you maintain that theory. If you understood what I said here, then chances are you could render by means of this understanding some actual restricted questions worth consideration, and even understand to a fair degree a common ground on which to mutually discuss the matter not spinning the tires flat as millions did before you.

It is a necessary hypothetical conclusion to uncertainty. Intelligence implies chaos, unless intelligence is omnipresent/omnipresent. If it were omni present then nothing could follow something else. But the object which is hypothetically chaotic must always be necessarily restricted from proof, what you end up with is a mirror of your self in the object you think is chaotic, it is simply your mathematical capacity to divide an identity into more than one element, impose these elements onto phenomenal objects (typically subconsciously) assume a similar physical context for both to subsist in and see divergent effects. The thing is, everything is both in some sense similar and in some sense different, and for this reason alone chaos theory in its most typical instantiation is absurd. For they in whose mind this does not follow then my prior argument of phenomenological "reduction" are also unlikely to hit home. There is another alternative, which can hold chaos theory possible, which says that potentiality is prior to actuality, which implies that every potential outcome becomes actual, which then implies an infinite universe. This then is a chaos theory without internal contradiction, but it also is pure speculation. But since everything potential is first actual (including speculation), this infinite hypothesis itself is empty. If it can be both empty and true then there must actually be something by which it is rendered true outside oneself of which one can say nothing, and for this reason what started as a question of truth ended as one of utility, for we may have good use of pure speculation. On this however, regarding your question I have little to say, for I am no physicist nor a mathematician. Everything which is said about chaos above can be said, though articulated a little differently, about probability.