Cred

I agree Replace unity with infinity and duality with the finite

What you're talking about is ontology, the method of which is contemplation

@Leo Gura the finite, and the infinite create reality together in harmony.

@Monster Energy i'm not saying that existence is not intelligent. I'm saying that in addition to both the order and chaos aspect, it also has both a finite and an infinite aspect. These also seem to make a unity of opposites. Without the infinite the finite I can't exist, and without the finite, the infinite can't exist. I think your pet example is very fitting. According to my model, different humans have a different access to infinity. For example, if you are a very empathic person, you resonate with the empathy of dogs, and if you are an unempathetic person, you resonate more with cats, for example. Another example is, that an autistic person has a better access to the beauty of complexity, while a neurotropical person has a better access to pride through identity. if you put someone with autism or ADHD in a rally, they will only see stupidity, and therefore the finite. but if a Neurotypical person is very involved with the movement, it can lead them to get glimpse of infinity through that.

@Willy Phallicus Word. Yeah it's a Yin and Yang thing

I am making a distinction between a system and an intelligent system. existence also has a finite aspect that is not intelligent in my view There is no infinity without complexity is what I'm saying

existence is not inherently intelligent. Intelligence arises from order and complexity (also it has to be a system). A gas cloud, for example, has low order and is therefore not intelligent in my definition.

This is the thing that I also don't quite get😅 if the second law of thermodynamics is correct, this means that at the beginning of the universe, there was lower entropy, even though the universe was obviously more chaotic. There seems to be a strange relationship between entropy order and chaos that I don't quite understand yet.

@Monster Energy Order causes more chaos than just chaos

@zurew I see what you mean. You are pointing out the distinction of "the universe has a direction", which is entropy and "the universe has an end goal" which is teleology. Did I get it right?

The Field is neither unity nor duality duality and not unity not duality and unity and both unity and duality ad infinitum It's a strange loop basically

I don't think we are in disagreement. I am making a distinction between the whole and unity.

you are mistaking complexity for unity. This is a very subtle distinction.

@zurew yes the term teleology is a term of the domain of meaning. However, I think I can show how meaning arises from entropy.

The field includes both unity and duality. If you have complete unity, you have amalgamation, obsession and loss of control.

I agree with this, but Love is not unity, crucially. Love is the balance between unity and duality, which is symbiosis. With complete unity there is no life. The reason why unity and duality both exist is to maximize entropy. Localized unity causes the whole system to gain more entropy in the long run in my understanding. complete unity, which is singularity, increases entropy through the Hawking radiation

@zurew teleology is true in so far that entropy increases. Is it not?

Symbolically speaking, I want to use this theory to get as many people back into the garden Eden as possible (the way to do this is actually kinda trivial if once understands the theory, but it is very hard to do without knowledge about the theory). I would like to dissolve the punishment of the original sin and defeat alienation and therefore bring back the harmony between unity and duality (end polarization). I know that if this is true, this technically symbolically makes me the Messiah lol. But I really do believe, the theory has this much power potentially. I have an idea for where unity and duality comes from. I think it comes from entropy. The way a system maximize entropy is not just with chaos through seperation, but utilizing order to create more chaos. If you think about it, a human might be a very low entropy being, but it produces a lot more entropy in its lifetime due to their impact on the environment. If I remember correctly, even the most extreme example of unity, which is singularity, produces a lot of entropy at the end through the Hawking radiation. However, I've also heard that a black hole has some specific entropy, which kind of doesn't compute for me yet. So in that view, the existence of both unity and duality is just the most likely outcome statistically, according to thermodynamics. I want to add that I'm not a specialist at all of these are only ideas. This offers an interesting attempt at defining mind: A system is more "mind-like", the more complex it is and the less entropy it has. So a gas cloud, for example, is a system, and it is complex, but it doesn't have low entropy, so it is not mind. A human brain is a system that is more complex than the brain of a fish. Their can exist structures beyond the brain that are also mind-like, like an ecosystem, which kind of makes perfect sense in my opinion.

The reason why reality is structured, is because it is not. There exists plenty of chaos, but these chaotic waves lead to destructive interference, and therefore annihilate each other, such that the only lasting waves are standing waves which are those who are in resonance with the respective systems.

Incoherence is also only ever defined relative to coherence. What is dissonant to one mind can be resonant to the other and vice versa. So non-coherence is not incoherence, it is non-resonance (in contrast to dissonance), which is stillness, which is emptiness.

@Leo GuraYes, a dream can also have "neutral resonance" which is just a neutral emotion or a phenomenon more broadly. Nature itself for example, thus not have inherent symbolic meaning, therefore the awe of the beauty of nature is what I would categorize as neutral resonance

In a dream, the mind is only dissonant in regard to coherence. A dream is highly resonant in regard to meaning through symbolism, for example.

I don't know if it is a coincidence, but I happen to be working on a field ontology, which affirms your intuition:

What would a true ontology look like?