Malkom

If we take the 7 Millennium Problems, we could, for fun (or perhaps even truly), create a playful model of the connection with the 7 chakras. And how this works not just in practice, but more specifically, in everyday life. I won't describe their mathematical properties—don't worry about it—but I'll go straight to the analogy. Here's an example: 1. Muladhara's playful connection with the Millennium Problem—Yang-Mills Theory and the existence of a mass gap. (I chose this for Muladhara; it's very appropriate.) The essence: The energy of a system cannot be zero; there is a minimum threshold (mass gap) that ensures stability and prevents particle decay. Without this "gap," the world would be unstable. Particles in Yang-Mills theory have mass (even when not moving), meaning they contain internal energy (E=mc²). Stability and existence require energy and constraints. In everyday life, this can be used to set clear personal boundaries, focus energy, and recognize the value of inertia and self-restraint to prevent chaos and achieve sustainability. Action: Use the "mass gap" principle to create personal stability and inertia in your systems. Establish a minimum threshold (the gap) below which you will not fall. Example: Your personal boundaries are your "mass gap." If you set a rule like "I never work after 7:00 PM" or "I sleep at least 7 hours," this creates an energetic threshold that prevents your energy from "disintegrating" and burning out (instability). This gap gives you stability. Action: Use self-restraint and discipline to focus your energy within "project boundaries" or "task boundaries" rather than scattering it uncontrollably. Example: Instead of trying to do 10 things at once (loose gluons that create no stability), you "lock" your energy and attention to one task for an hour. This focused energy creates a stable, tangible result (a proton/neutron), not just chaotic noise. Action: Recognize the value of stillness and inertia. Rest and pauses are not "doing nothing," but rather accumulating potential (mass/energy). Example: When you rest, read, or simply reflect (restful energy), you don't waste time. You create a "mass gap," accumulating internal energy for future action. 2. Svadhisana: A playful connection to the Millennium Development Goal: A unique and smooth solution to the Navier-Stokes equation (there isn't one). The point: This hypothetical situation teaches us the principles of managing chaos, embracing uncertainty, and focusing on resilience rather than precise predictions. In complex, three-dimensional systems (work, family, economics), smooth and predictable solutions do not exist. Turbulence (chaos, crises, failures) is the normal state of the system. If the solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations are not unique, this means there is no "one right" path that leads to a predictable outcome. If it is impossible to accurately predict the weather a month from now due to turbulence, we focus on building weather-resistant houses and ships. teaches us that the world is full of turbulence, and attempts to find a "smooth and unique" solution are often futile. If it's impossible to accurately predict the weather a month from now due to turbulence, we focus on building weather-resistant homes and ships. Wisdom lies in embracing this chaos, planning for uncertainty, and creating resilient systems that thrive in an unpredictable reality. Action: Stop expecting a "smooth" and predictable course of events. Plan for glitches, delays, and surprises. Example: When planning a budget or project, don't assume a perfect scenario. Allow 20-30% of the budget for "turbulence" (unforeseen expenses, delivery delays). Action: Stop looking for a single "perfect" solution or "one right way." Accept that there are many equally valid but different paths. Example: When choosing a career path or a method of raising children, there is no single, unique answer. Use a "trial and error" approach, and be prepared to change course, as there is no "smooth and unique solution" for your life. Action: Focus not on accurately predicting the future, but on creating systems that are resilient in the face of chaos. Example: Instead of trying to predict the behavior of the financial market, you create a resilient system: a diversified portfolio that can withstand any "turbulence." Your goal is not to predict the wave, but to stay afloat after it. 3. Manipura's playful connection to the Millennium Prize problem—the P&NP problem (99% is not equal, but the difference between them is not 0% to 100%, but within 87% to 100%). There is a fundamental gap between the ease of verification (checking) and the difficulty of synthesis (creation). Verification is a polynomial problem (fast), while creation is exponential (slow). For NP-complete problems (such as perfect planning or optimization), there is no fast, perfect algorithm. Finding the perfect solution would take the entire lifetime of the universe. Life is full of fundamental barriers between the ease of judgment and the difficulty of action. In everyday life, this can be used to focus on realistic, approximate solutions (heuristics), to respect the labor of creation, and to avoid the trap of facile criticism. Action: Recognize the vast difference in resources required for criticism and creation. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the ease of testing (criticism) makes you think that creating something is just as easy. Example: Criticizing a website design by saying "it's bad" is easy (Problem P). Creating a functional, beautiful, and user-friendly website from scratch is an NP-hard problem. The Principle of P Not Equal to NP teaches you to respect the work of creators and be constructive, recognizing the complexity of the process. Action: Refuse to search for a single, ideal, optimal solution in complex life situations. Instead, use heuristics—approximate, "good enough" methods. Example: Planning the perfect itinerary for a trip with 10 friends, ensuring everyone is comfortable and within budget—is an NP-complete problem. You will never find the perfect solution. The Principle of P Not Equal to NP says to use heuristics—propose 2-3 options and vote on them. This is a good enough solution, arrived at quickly. Action: Appreciate the effort put into creating something complex, even if the result seems simple. Example: A good tip or solution to a problem may seem simple and obvious. But finding it (creating it) may have required years of experience and effort (exponential time). The P not equals NP principle teaches us to value this complexity of creation, not just the ease of verifying the result. 4. Anahata is a playful connection to the Millennium Prize problem – the Poincaré-Perelman theorem. The principle of simplification, the search for a basic form, and the smoothing out of complexities. The gist is: Complex shapes and deformations (problems, complex situations) can be reduced to their basic, simplest form if they have no irreparable flaws (fundamental "holes"). If space has a "hole," you can't turn it into a sphere; it will forever remain a torus (a donut). Perelman used "Ricci flow" – a process that slowly and consistently smooths out all geometric curvatures. Action: Apply "Ricci Flow" to complex situations. Ask yourself, "What is the underlying, spherical form of this problem?" Example: A project at work has grown, become complex, and ineffective (distorted form). The Poincaré-Perelman principle says it can be simplified to its core essence (sphere). You cut out all unnecessary functions, return to the original goal, and "smooth" the process, making it manageable and understandable. Action: Distinguish between superficial problems and fundamental flaws. Superficial problems can be "smoothed" and simplified; fundamental ones require radical change. Example: Small habits (superficial irregularities) can be "smoothed" with Ricci Flow (self-discipline). But if you have a fundamental "hole" in your character or worldview (e.g., burnout, deep cynicism), simple "smoothing" (temporary motivation) won't suffice—you need to completely restructure your system. Action: Apply slow, consistent improvement to yourself or your projects. Don't expect instant results. Example: Instead of trying to change your life overnight (the "big bang"), use "Ricci Flow": small, consistent improvements every day (reading 10 pages, exercising for 15 minutes) will gradually "smooth out" your life and bring it to your desired baseline. 5. Vishuddha is a playful connection to the Millennium Prize problem, the Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer (BSD) hypothesis. The gist: To understand a difficult-to-measure property of a system (for example, whether an equation has rational solutions), it's not necessary to "break" the system. It's enough to look at an easily measurable, indirect indicator. The BSD hypothesis concerns rational solutions (fractions that can be written as numbers), not abstract or irrational ones. Action: Apply indirect diagnostics to complex problems that are difficult to analyze directly. Example: Instead of trying to directly measure customer or employee "satisfaction" (which is difficult), you look at the system's "L-function"—indirect indicators such as purchase frequency, number of missed workdays, and level of participation in team meetings. The BSD Hypothesis states that these indicators will accurately tell you whether there are "rational decisions" (success) in your system. Action: Focus on finding specific, measurable, "rational" decisions, not abstract "feelings" or "intentions." Example: In personal finance, your goal is not to "feel rich," but to have specific, rational decisions (numbers in an account, specific investments). The BSD Hypothesis reinforces the idea that only tangible, numerical decisions matter for the system to function. Action: Use different languages and approaches to solve the same problem. Example: When negotiating, use both "analytical" language (emotions, intuition, empathy) and "algebraic" language (logic, numbers, facts). The BSD Hypothesis teaches us that both approaches are needed to fully understand the truth. 6. Ajna's playful connection to the Riemann hypothesis (about chaos and order). The gist: If even such an orderly field as pure mathematics (prime numbers) obeys the laws of quantum chaos, then unpredictability is not a system failure, but its fundamental property. If randomness is fundamental, then our "hunches" or intuitive probability estimates can be just as important as rigorous deterministic analysis. The paradox of the Riemann hypothesis is that chaos (the intervals between zeros) coexists with perfect order (all zeros lie on a single line). This is a "rational" chaos that obeys a higher law. Action: Structuring Chaos - In a complex or chaotic situation, look for hidden "universal patterns." Example: In a busy work schedule (chaos), you can find a "critical line"—the 20% of tasks that produce 80% of the results (order). Focus on this structure to manage the apparent disorder. Action: In any chaotic situation, identify your "Critical Line"—your central, unchanging principle or goal. Example: In business or career, chaos is changing markets, competitors, and new technologies. The "Critical Line" is your mission, your fundamental values, or a key skill you are developing. Let your daily actions be chaotic and flexible (like zeros), but always stay "on line" with your primary purpose. Action: Allow yourself and your system to be chaotic at a local level if it helps maintain global order. Example: In creativity or team management: don't control every step and every minute of the workday (local chaos and freedom), but make sure the entire team is moving towards a single, clearly defined end goal (global order). 7. Sahasrara's playful connection to the Hodge Hypothesis. The essence: The Hodge Hypothesis teaches us to seek concrete, tangible causes for abstract problems and build bridges between seemingly incompatible areas of life. Abstract problems have concrete, tangible roots. There's no need to fight abstraction; we need to find its "algebraic cycle." The Hodge Hypothesis builds a bridge between two different mathematical languages (topology and algebraic geometry). It states that these languages describe the same reality. All "holes" in space must have a clear, algebraic explanation. Action: If you're facing an abstract problem (e.g., "feeling dissatisfied," "team communication issues," "lack of motivation"), don't try to solve it with abstract talk. Look for its concrete, tangible manifestation. Example: "Dissatisfaction" (a topological "hole") can be caused by a lack of physical activity, lack of sleep, or a lack of concrete communication. An algebraic cycle is a 30-minute run, 8 hours of sleep, or a call to a friend. The Hodge Hypothesis states that this cycle must exist. Action: Look for connections between seemingly incompatible areas of knowledge or skill. Combine them. Example: Combining music and programming (creating algorithms for generating music), or psychology and marketing. The Hodge Hypothesis suggests that the deepest truths lie at the intersection of disciplines. Action: In communication and negotiations, demand specifics and tangible facts. Don't let the discussion remain in the realm of abstract "feelings" and "opinions." Example: If someone tells you, "Our team is ineffective," that's an abstraction ("hole"). Use the Hodge Principle: "Give concrete numbers and examples (algebraic cycles) that prove this statement." For the especially "gifted" and other idiots, blockheads, and complete failures who will write about AI (I've already written about AI and the translator, so I won't repeat myself. And I made the bold font myself in the message editor ), I ask you to do one kind and unselfish (no-egoistik) thing: shut up and move on. Thank you.

A long time ago, when I was imprisoned, I encountered telepaths and psychics. I've never seen anything more vile in my life. For some reason, these people project their thoughts onto others, complete their thoughts for them, as if they're hallucinating, while sometimes having no connection to reality. I knocked one such telepath out cold - knockout. Only then could he finally truly listen to me, instead of spouting nonsense and pretending to read my motives. He's incapable of this, if only because he likely doesn't possess the same level of abstract thinking as I do; he'll only be mired in his own low energies. And mind reading isn't necessarily necessary; for example, if you're more intelligent than your opponent, and also more experienced in a particular matter, it will seem like mind reading. Who wants to attend a retreat called "Prison"?

But it doesn't answer the question of what "qualia" is. Why it arises, why a process like our brain needs qualia at all. And it doesn't answer the question of what "qualia" itself is. It seems to be always outside and always inside. Even if you go beyond "qualia"—well, you've simply gone beyond the mind—"qualia" always remains. I consider this question unanswerable in any universe, and I also consider this question meaningless, because it's self-explanatory; it simply exists. I recently learned that Edward Witten also thinks so. At least someone agrees with me. Some counter that it's computable, explained by processes: you feel pain, it's just one brain structure working (so to speak); you feel joy, it's a certain neuronal activity. YES. BUT this isn't "qualia" itself. It's simply an explanation of the process by which this particular "qualia" arose. And that's all, nothing more. And qualia doesn't equal intelligence. Animals have qualia, maybe even AI, and microbes have them. Only the degree of intelligence and activity varies, and perceptions differ. But their subjective experience always exists.

Boring experiences are normal. When you're mastering a skill or something else, or simply have nothing better to do and wander around not knowing what to do. This is all normal. On the contrary, it's during boredom that plans and ideas are born. You have to get through this difficult, tedious moment; good things don't come easy. Those who flee boredom in search of mountains of gold and eternal happiness are making a mistake; they are perpetually unhappy, and they don't understand that their dream of eternal bliss will never come true—this is a failed strategy. It's just Reality. Or do you disagree? Well, you don't have an ego, so you have to accept it. Or do you? Ahahahaha And don't forget that any closed system is doomed to degradation due to the constant increase in entropy. Entropy can only be reduced if you're an open system. There's an immediate parallel here. But is it possible to help yourself? Introspection or something, without outside help? Really, no? You won't gain anything other than self-destruction if you simply delve into your thoughts? Do you really need a guru or a psychologist for this? Yes and no. Your surroundings also provide you with feedback. If you disagree, then go on, develop yourself, engage in self-examination, and purify and expand your chakras.Maybe it will help. (in parentheses is questionable). Even Leo, when he says he's just imagining things, is actually unconsciously using an open system. Otherwise, he would be so shallow in his ideas and this forum wouldn't exist. Live with it now, haha And if we speak in terms of Spiral Dynamics, there is its lowest stage – Beige. The Animal stage, where chaos and lawlessness reign. But it is precisely in this chaos that resources are most active and true creative fire is born. In Spiral Dynamics, you can't say that the Turquoise stage is better and the Red stage is not, for example. They all have the same right to exist. It's like with the chakarma – you develop the seventh chakra, but not the lower one. It would be more correct to also engage the lower one, and the others, but the most important and only chakra is still the heart; there are no other chakras. COMPLETENESS

ок

Then don't write nonsense. This is no place for children.

Go study, don't hang out on these forums.

Yes. After 5-Meo DMT, I actually had a physical experience, not a mystical one. But it was something else entirely; it wasn't even really an orgasm, although yes, that's also true. But language can't capture the full essence, even with the eloquence of a brilliant poet and scientist. No language can be completely self-sufficient in defining its own truth. A more powerful, "meta" language is always required to discuss truth at a lower level.

Here you are undeniably right.

Nirvana, harmony, or perfection or ideal...— they can be called different things/names. Why is it unreal? It's quite real . You can touch such moments. Complete satisfaction and complete peace, even if only for a moment, are also a manifestation of life. Your intuition doesn't lie to you, God be Good. Because life always strives for life.

You need to understand your psyche. Specifically, the nature of your psyche, what you truly want. And don't ignore your desires; discarding desires is nonsense (that's a slightly different story). The fact that you're feeling rage may indicate a lot of energy within you, coupled with discontent. Awakening isn't the absence of desires, it's Pure Desire, Existence itself, it's Life itself manifesting through you, and therefore God. And survival is also a manifestation of Life. Imagine that you are a Primordial Beast, incredibly powerful, a true natural, primordial force. Ahahaha, this is how God manifests Himself on these levels. God is not Good and Evil. Listen to gurus less. The answer is within you.

Bro, you're idealizing Leo too much (I don't mean to say anything bad), you're a little out of touch with reality.

cognitive distortion or hallucination

All people are selfish. Anyone who says they're not selfish is either deluding themselves or subconsciously covering up their selfishness with good deeds. NO Selfishness is when you REALLY sacrifice yourself. Have there been many such cases? Has there ever been one? So, think about it. Ahahaha Anyone who says they're not selfish is probably even more selfish. I see such people on the forum.

That's what I'm talking about, the "free flow" of energy through the manifestations of body and mind, being as authentic as possible with yourself. Everything else is just concepts, be it duality or non-duality.

Josh may know he's a Screen, but he'll never understand what it's like to truly be a Screen. He doesn't have the "qualia" of a Screen, nor can he. All he can have is a model of being a Screen. And Josh has no way to transcend the Screen to realize he's part of the Screen. He'd have to become something that perceives the Screen as a Screen, not something that perceives the Screen as a Screen. But that's not even the Screen itself anymore.

Contrary to popular belief, a thought is not a feeling. It doesn't correspond to reality. Any feeling, any thought, is always a thought-feeling. Another question is how high you think; if you do, then your feelings can be transcendental. This is just an example, not in the literal sense. Feelings—I feel in love, I feel elated, I feel inspired, I feel alive, I feel inspired... These feelings are also thoughts. And yet, the feelings I just described differ from each other. Gradations, so to speak. And there are many of them. If we say there are no feelings, fine. I feel coldness, I feel detachment, I feel confusion, I feel bewilderment, I feel indifference, I feel emptiness... There are many of them, and to hide behind the absence of thoughts means to hide behind this feeling; in any case, this cannot be avoided. P.S. The AI translator repeated the same word, although there are two different words and different meanings. I feel "inspired", I feel alive, I feel "inspired" So it's untranslatable. I feel frustrated,I feel helpless, I feel angry, I feel joy a visual example online, impromptu.

I feel a touch of racism

You have the wrong idea about scientists. If AI starts talking about God, that's how it will be. No one will start running around in panic. That's the first thing. Second. AI or AGI won't answer the question of what non-duality is because it's a direct, subjective experience and isn't transmitted through a broadcast.

I also had a dream for many months. Delusional. Well, how to say delusional. Hallucinatory-delusional-intuitive. That is, there is some truth to it. That was the dream. Will there be a Third World War? I see a lot of people, I'm talking to them about something, and suddenly I see an actor, bald, I go up to him, and suddenly I realize that I'm dreaming. And I understand that I can ask him any question, and he, as my own object of my subconscious, will give the answer. I ask him - will there be a war between Russia and NATO? He answered me and laughed very, very loudly. I didn't remember exactly what he said, but I should have written it down

Here's my AI translator translating the word "hot," as "hot." Although I expressed it differently in my native language, the word has many connotations in my language. The AI isn't yet able to overcome this barrier.

Why is everyone so obsessed with dopamine? Dopamine isn't related to pleasure. Things are much more interesting there, but we need a neurobiologist to explain that. But I can say for sure that focusing on dopamine is completely unnecessary.

don't try to understand, just feel

It's hot in here. It's like watching a reality show with all the gossip (popcorn) I've also been accused of using AI, but that's either because I use an AI translator, or because I'm genuinely tongue-tied ahaha and can't formulate my thoughts into speech. I have thoughts, but they haven't reached my speech apparatus yet.

Yes, I recently watched this video of Leo. But I think he was talking about something a little different. And reality can only be described as mystical.