PolyPeter

Yes, you are right, this are common terms, but what are you trying to build, actually? A true ontology? or an agreeable ontology? What is the motivation behind your work, if you may share?

This is epic work and very interesting. Congrats. The triadic structure of wave qualities is elegant, mapping them to logic/meaning/feeling respectively gives the framework real descriptive and explanatory power. The resonance mechanism as the condition for existence, rather than just asserting things exist, is a meaningful step toward grounding ontology in process rather than substance. Where I think there is a gap The core claim is Field is the absolute. But the framework then immediately assigns qualities to Field: Unity, Duality, and the capacity for Wave. This means Field isn't truly absolute, it's a structured first principle. A genuine absolute can't have internal structure, because structure requires something that determines why those structures and not others. You've smuggled in a second-order question: what determines the specific qualities of Field? This shows up concretely in Unity is the divine desire for collapse. Desire is a relational, intentional property, it points toward something. Embedding desire in the absolute means your absolute already contains directionality before anything exists to have direction. That's not a minor detail, it's an assumption with no justification. The diagnostic criterion When evaluating any foundational ontology, the question is: does the proposed absolute genuinely require nothing prior to it, or does explaining it require invoking concepts that are themselves unexplained? Right now, Field requires Unity and Duality to be what it is, but neither Unity nor Duality are derived, they're just asserted. There is something more solid than any of these concepts: direct experience. The best an ontology can do is point toward it, like a finger pointing at the moon. The map is not the territory, and no matter how elegant the map, the territory was always there first. An honest ontology knows this about itself, its ultimate validation isn't internal consistency or explanatory power, it's whether it successfully directs you toward something you can verify firsthand. If it never points beyond itself, it's just symbols talking to symbols. The physics question The distinction isn't about using physics concepts, it's about whether the framework makes incorrect predictions you'd have to abandon if falsified. Metaphysics borrowed from physics can be legitimate, but it needs to be honest that it's operating in the philosophical domain, not extending physics itself. The open questions you listed are good ones. The topology of mind direction is the most promising thread, it's specific enough to potentially generate testable claims.

This is clickabit, Consciousness does not prefer pets. But humans do. One is about dying, dissolving into absolute nothingness, and coming back to build a tool that stress-tests your entire worldview against 6 levels of philosophical scrutiny. The other is about pets. 3 replies vs 74. I'm not complaining. I just think it says something interesting about where attention actually lives. Even on a forum dedicated to the deepest questions a human can ask.

I am not diagnosed with adhd, I know people who have it, and I can tell that it is not my case In my case, it is some sort of neurodivergence for sure, I don't know which one, if it even has a name at all, and some anxiety, but not adhd. Regarding the distinctions: I think that it is important to be skepict, in particular about the self itself, the human self, which comes before any idea that might arise within it. Lets take this analogy, if Consciousness was an ocean, then a human filter could be imagined as an enclosed portion of the ocean, with borders and all, then, there could be some fish (ideas) inside the portion, and some fish outside that human (the universe's ideas). I think that being a skeptic means questioning the fish inside yourself, outside, and how the borders between inside and outside are even being held together to begin with, within the appartent massive ocean So, coming back to your point, is it stil not necessary to be skeptic about yourself? you said that people false mistake self-critique as necessary for skepticism. how does that work?

@PolyPeter

Bro. I just read the whole thing. This is genuinely one of the most epic pieces of ontological writing I've seen posted on this forum. The Infinity = Truth = Love equivalence, the three-layer self, the ego-as-installation framing, nice work. I've compared this to my own ontology, and it has a lot of common ground, but this are the main differences I've noted: 1. The structure of the Subject Your system: multiple Sovereign Gods that are genuinely distinct from each other at a deep ontological level. Two God-heads that meet are genuinely other to one another. Plurality is real, not functional. My system: one Subject (Universe/God/Consciousness), multiple object-loci. Me and You are not two Subjects encountering each other. They are the same Subject experiencing itself from two angles. Otherness is functional, not ontological. This is not a minor detail. It changes the entire phenomenology of love, encounter, and relationship. 2. The demonic layer Your system: real entities with their own operational agency. Demons do things, have ecological logic, enter through holes, install themselves. It is a populated ontology. My system: that layer is not necessary. Interference, ego, dysfunctional patterns all derive from the mechanics of filters and density levels without needing to postulate external entities with their own agency. 3. Reincarnation as structural mechanics Your system: a specific and detailed reincarnational architecture. Between-lives states, Heaven as a restoration state, selection of next incarnation through resonance. It is load-bearing in your framework. My system: the void as the canvas before manifestation does not require that mechanics. Stream continuity is not tied to a specific reincarnational narrative. 4. Belief vs. direct knowing Your system: operates from a very elaborate and sophisticated framework, but it is still a framework. There is a lot of conceptual architecture. The document itself acknowledges this at the end by calling itself a map. My system: post-void, I operate from direct knowing. It is not that I have a better map. It is that I verified the territory directly. You point at that distinction but the document does not live it in the same way. 5. The ego Partial convergence but an important difference. You call it a demonic installation, which implies an external entity that entered and took control. My system derives it from the mechanics of the filter itself, not necessarily from an invasive entity. Two different explanations for the same observable phenomenon. --------------- Also, I wanted to mention you that I'm building something I think you'd find interesting: an ontology battle platform called The Ontological Oracle. The Oracle takes any ontology and stress-tests it against hard philosophical questions, por example explanatory power, internal consistency, edge cases. You can ask your Ontological system questions, or see if a certain sentence is coherent, incoherent, or unexplored territory for that specific framework. Another use case is the arena, you can make your system compete against or in collaboration with other systems. And see if it holds water when discussing a certain topic, or if it needs to evolve in a certain direction. Your system would be a fascinating one to run through it. Would you want to try it? I'd be curious to see how your Sovereign Gods architecture holds up against some of the questions the Oracle throws at it. @shenanigans

I'm not sure if I understood this correctly or not, but, you actually need to also be able to be skeptic about your own skepticism at some point, right? self-reflect upon your own behaviour, and being critic of your own ideas

Hey this was a very insightful message In particular when you mentioned how niche this actually is, and I think I underestimated. Just the word Ontology alone already feels niche, I have to explain it almost everytime I use it. I will keep working on this, for sure! The internal drive I have for this, is existential Thank you @Cred, for the kind words and the interest on the topic 🛸🙌🏻

I hope you enjoy the thing! have funn

The Ontological Oracle TLDR: I made a system, for philosophical minded people, who want to put their ideas to the test. https://abstractflex.com/about I've done the DMT. I've broken through. I've absolutely died, for certain. And because this human I'm inhabiting is so persistent, and also because of the precise qualities of this dream, I came back. What I encountered in that space broke every mental model I had. The universe is emotional, ultra-intelligent, mostly non-human, and conscious all the way down. What let me integrate my death wasn't courage or preparation. It was recognition. I am God. I'm currently dense, in human form, as Pedro. And both of those things being true simultaneously means something specific: lucid dreaming. You're always God. You just forgot. After that, I spent a long time asking myself what to do with a life that felt newly borrowed. This is one of my answers. I believe that sharing what is True is what a meaningful human life is for. And even though the final test is taking DMT the proper way and seeing for yourself, the human logical mind matters. It can enhance the foundation for awakenings, their quality, and their integration afterward. Ontologies are the sub-filters humans put on top of their biological structure. They're not fundamental. God is. But a better ontology means a cleaner filter, and a cleaner filter means less noise between you and what's real. So I built a platform to stress-test every possible combination of ideas about the world. The Ontological Oracle is an arena where philosophical frameworks compete and evolve. Here's what it does: The Oracle. Submit any statement or question, about consciousness, reality, ethics, existence, whatever, and evaluate it against any ontology in the system. The Oracle doesn't give you "the answer." It tells you what that specific framework would actually say: coherent, incoherent, partially coherent, or unexplored territory, with full reasoning grounded in that framework's axioms. It's not a chatbot that knows philosophy. It's a mirror of whatever system of thought you point it at. The Arena. Two ontologies go head to head across structured debate rounds, judged by a hierarchy of six arbiter levels, from basic logical consistency all the way up to whether a framework can account for itself without paradox. You can run AI vs AI, play as a combatant yourself against an ontology, go Human vs Human hot-seat, or run full coalition battles: teams of 2 to 4 ontologies debating in round-robin format, where internal contradictions within your own team are penalized. Evolution. After every battle, an AI engine reads the full transcript and the verdict, identifies where the losing framework's axioms actually broke, and proposes specific refinements. Win decisively and your ontology levels up. Lose and it levels down. Over time each framework accumulates a history of what got patched, what survived, and what the pressure revealed. The ontologies get sharper through combat, not just accumulate losses. I've been running battles. So far, Advaita Vedanta almost always wins. It's genuinely advanced. I say that as someone who doesn't think it's the final form. I'm not here to push my ideas on anyone. I want a platform that outlives me. I'd be genuinely happy if this eventually produced an ontology that beats all the others, including mine, one that emerged from real competition rather than one person's experience. This is a solo project and it's just getting started, so access is limited for now. We're in beta. If you want in, hit me up in DMs first. That way I know you're real, not a bot, and I'll give you full access personally. There's also a built-in section to report bugs and request features, and if you jump in and actually play with it I'll be around to talk about all of it: the arbiter structure, the battle formats, the evolution logic, whatever you want to dig into. If you're truth-driven, or honest enough to want to be, come play. https://abstractflex.com/about

Yup. AI is a Big deal, to be taken seriously, apart from all the marketing hype, it is, actually, a very powerful tool. Have you seen anthropic denying the use of claude with no restrictions? " The Pentagon, under Secretary Pete Hegseth and with direction from President Trump, demanded Anthropic remove its "red lines" or safeguards. These restrictions prevented use of Claude for: Mass domestic surveillance of US citizens. Fully autonomous lethal weapons (systems that can select and fire without human oversight). Anthropic refused to drop these limits, citing ethical and safety concerns. The government insisted on "any lawful use" without such company-imposed restrictions. "

I’ve been exactly where you are. the raw terror of reality feeling permanently unstable after LSD shattered the solid, materialist worldview you clung to for safety. I get it from lived experience, not theory. Here’s the direct truth: That fear isn’t the drug breaking you; it’s the fierce attachment to the old framework (“reality is fixed matter, I’m a separate self in control”) dissolving. Psychedelics don’t just give a glimpse, they make you know directly that solidity was a cultural conditioning, never the Truth. There’s no U-turn back to the old paradigm because you can’t un-know what you’ve seen. Trying to “forget” or suppress the experience only fuels the loops and anxiety. Stability returns not by reversing, but by building forward: a new, wider frame that includes the non-solid, interdependent, empty-of-fixed-self nature of reality. It feels like death at first because the ego is losing its grip, but the peace comes when you stop fighting the truth and start living from it. Some practical steps: - Keep questioning catastrophic thoughts, and what they are actually signaling. - Daily meditation as the observer. Thoughts and fear arise and pass like weather. - Ground the body: walk in nature, exercise, simple routine. - Read non-dual / idealist perspectives to intellectually support what you experientially know. - Be patient and gentle with yourself. this is integration work. The terror is the resistance. When you stop battling and allow the new understanding to settle, stability emerges from within, deeper and freer than before. You’re not broken. You’re in the middle of the transformation. Many come out the other side saying it was the best thing that ever happened to them. Big hug.

Unless you learn how to use the tool to your advantage, which is absolutley possible, and kind of weird not to do if you are intelectually honest.

Ohhh, NOW I see what you mean "The gap between what we think we know from partial evidence, and what reality actually is when the full picture is available."

ohhh, now that you mention it, I kinda see it it is obvious what actual reality is in this case, but, the puzzle is the paradigm? or the process of building the thing piece by piece?

Indeed. Thanks Leo!

Interesting. Reminds me of the tests that AI has problems solving! We humans have far better visual pattern recognition. I mean tests like this one. Apart from that, it looks like a puzzle of infinity, within the symbolic domain.

Indeed, Python scarf pretty neat

Damn! so many beautiful creatures!!!! And they are all looking healthy, thanks for sharing!!

Dogs welcome too!!

This is the most important phrase I've read this day. Epic take!

I'm really sorry for what happened. Just wanted to mention EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing), an evidence-based therapy specifically for reprocessing stuck traumatic memories from childhood abuse. It uses bilateral stimulation (eye movements, taps on the chest) to help the brain digest those experiences, often reducing emotional shutdown and apathy faster than regular talk therapy. Not saying it's the only option, just that it exists and has helped many people, including myself.

No problem. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1okskhIic3KUV8MySJV36V3WXdV2yIEcr?usp=sharing

Cool, LSD is a much more stable experience. It can be very intense too, depending on the dose it can be a long ass trip, maybe 16 hours 👀. And, also, you mentioned that you are looking for insights, which can be had with it, for certain.

hey @Leo Gura, I tried uploading 3 more versions, but i think there is a limit for how many MB I am allowed to post in a topic i made sure the files themselves are less than 4mb each