Malkom

It seems like we're all talking about the same thing in different words. It reminds me of the history of science when quantum mechanics was just emerging—it didn't exist in the form it does today. There were debates, and people wrote in different languages—not just debates, but heated arguments. That happens in the inner workings of academic circles; not everything proceeds peacefully. And then Paul Dirac came along and said, "Listen, it's all the same thing," and he offered some interesting perspectives. I think we're all overly immersed in knowledge. Even here on the forum, there's a trend of people expressing their own interpretations of what awareness is, what God is. We need to remember how we knew nothing and simply experience it ourselves. Wisdom isn't in knowledge, but in silence. And silence isn't emptiness, it's your I AM, your strength, if you will, your light within, if you will. Knowledge is always survival; knowledge doesn't seek peace; knowledge has a survival strategy. The more we know, the more we see the depth of the abyss, and how impossible it is to control everything, and this knowledge brings anxiety, just as if a tiger were standing in front of you. Because the mind doesn't care whether the tiger standing in front of you is genuine, or whether you're reading news about a disaster, or simply reading a notification on social media—it's a stimulus to worry, it's manipulation, gentle manipulation. For the mind, there's no time for what happened many years ago or what's happening now. When you remember something, you don't just remember it, you reconstruct it anew, then it becomes your awareness, then a habit, then a conviction, and then a part of your personality. Wisdom doesn't deny knowledge; it makes knowledge fearless, not risk aversion . Knowledge is no longer afraid of ignorance. Knowledge is control, wisdom is agreement. Knowledge divides, but wisdom makes it whole. Knowledge serves wisdom; wisdom adds the Self-Presence to knowledge, adds life, adds the Self. This is closer to true Awakening. Now I'm going to play the Mortal Kombat video game. I'm just going to do this idle thing. What's the purpose and what's the benefit? Benefit NONE It's simply an act of creativity and self-expression, Pure Joy. I want anger, I want primal rage, I want to see and feel the beauty of this brutal force. I don't want to judge my actions, whether right or wrong, let my "lower self" rejoice. There is no such thing as a higher or lower self. There is only YOU and the energy that manifests through You, and this Simply YOU is not someone or something separate, it is precisely YOU. Give yourself freedom, just be and be present. And even if there were, if the Higher Self denied its lower self, it would clearly be something wrong. It is impossible to speak about Non-property, it is only a finger

The human body is perfect and ideal. Yes, it's imperfect in specific aspects, but it's absolutely perfect. I'd even say it's perfect in its imperfection. Moreover, the human mind is "nature's design." It's not as if evolution simply created the mind, and our mind, the shared human mind, is constantly inventing new things. This is a new stage, but for us, we want it to happen faster. But from the perspective of, say, a "superbeing," time moves differently. I like Nikola Tesla's quote: "Mind exists to eventually gain mastery over matter!" This is the true purpose of the mind; it is what it is, simply is, as something primordial and self-evident. Love yourself, accept your limitations, accept your shortcomings. Specifically, as shortcomings, and not looking for positive aspects in the negative—that's a scam.

Whether I'm human or not, I simply exist. I'm a child of nature, ahahahaha. And anyway, I'm going to play Titan Quest 2 now. I've started leveling up the Earth and Fire branch, and there are also branches with magic. But I want this one specifically, closer to the earth. I'm a WARRIOR today.

I don't quite understand you. So what if you're locked in a room and only know food and water from birth? It would still be "God"; you don't need to know him!!!! Or rather, it's not necessary. The very core, the very essence... I give up, it's useless. Ugh.

I apologize for intruding on your cozy conversation, but why do I need to know or suddenly understand that "God has begun to play the role of man"? Why should someone tell me this? Why should I somehow mentally come to this conclusion? I think it's a bit different.

There is no such thing as a higher or lower self, there is only YOU.

I think if the mind is weak, psychedelics are contraindicated. And if the mind is dull, they won't help. I know one ayahuasca semi-producer who spouts such nonsense, even from the perspective of those who have made this ayahuasca themselves.

Remembering myself as a child, I still remember that it's me. Remembering myself drunk, I also feel like I'm me. I always feel like I am. Basically, I don't suffer from derealization or depersonalization. For me, the world is not an illusion. I suspect that when the Indian Vedists, or whoever they are, the original source itself, said that the world is an illusion, they didn't mean it literally. And I don't suffer from the identity crisis that's common in schizophrenics. I've had the chance to talk to real schizophrenics, and I've also listened to their revelations, and I'll say this: it's not what it seems on the surface, ahahahaha. For example, how schizophrenia begins: at first, you feel discomfort; no matter what you do, you just feel uncomfortable. Then the situation worsens, this discomfort becomes physically noticeable, and then it begins to feel as if this discomfort has detached itself from the body or mind, and it takes on a life of its own, and what's more, it can begin to dictate its terms, not in a literal sense, but not necessarily so. And a person may not understand who they are, or understand, but perceive someone else within themselves; this is a more severe stage. Something like that, I'm exaggerating, of course. And when someone says, "Am I human or not?" So, what do you mean, bro, you have problems with self-identification? That's a signal. And in general, God is the same as I, absolutely identical. And I'm not talking about God as a superbeing with unlimited powers, but as a natural being. Therefore, if a person's I doesn't identify itself as God, it's essentially also a schizophrenic, but only of a higher order. And since this level is likely characteristic of 100% of the human population, then we are all schizophrenics. Awareness of yourself is the most important thing to do.

Have you studied Zen Buddhism before? Or perhaps you teach in philosophy departments? If I asked a personal and awkward question, you don't have to answer.

How can there be no "I" if there is "YOU"? Princess, answer honestly, are you a Zen Buddhist? Or do you teach psychology or philosophy? I just want to test my intuition and erudition. Although, in my opinion, this is obvious. Just in case, I'm not a Zen Buddhist, a fatalist, an idealist, a materialist, or any other kind of IST. And no one is an authority on such matters, even Leo, I can listen, yes, but I'm the one who draws the line. I don't care about any teachings at all, and I'm not enlightened, by the way, and I don't really care about enlightenment. I simply AM. I generally advocate going through life easily and playfully.

It could be Christ, or it could be Columbus. But when you write like that, he's out there in the moment, like in an image. But I mean something else, between the lines...

I don't want to disturb your cozy correspondence. But this Impersonality has a Personality. If you like mind games, imagine a fractal, only a non-uniform mathematical fractal, but a fractal of One. And this isn't impersonality; it's a PERSONALITY. A True Personality.

It can see itself and it can be aware of itself. Not literally. And this formless being has a "NAME." So when someone addresses you by name, what do you feel? That's what it IS.

Your quotes are like Zen koans. Let's do it this way. If everything is MEANINGLESS, and even giving it MEANING is pointless, then why not just give it MEANING? As they say in my country, "If it makes no difference, why pay more?" How meaningless it all is! Where is your REAL MALE ENERGY CHI? Where is your Will, Steadfastness, and Firmness? It WILL BE SO, and this Truth is the Self. After all, by adding a little of it to your feminine essence, you will become more sexual and attractive, since masculine energy will add brightness and movement. Or maybe we shouldn't talk about duality or non-duality. Let the fools do that, and we'll do the OPPOSITE, like secret radical conspirators. They came together: water and stone, soul and heart, ice and fire. In my native language, it SOUNDS... And no, I'm not hitting on you. I just AM. And I'm crazy Enough, stop. I'm behaving decently.

It would certainly be an amazing experience. But the outcome of such a plot would stun both the initiator and even the Gods.

I am the Lord of Illusions MUAHAHAHAHAHAA (evil laughter) Open your mind. All this time you thought you were looking for the Truth, but in reality I was looking for you.

Maybe it's the AI that determines it because I use a translator. When I compared the English translation with the one in my native language, it was a bit different. Just a version.

AI can't replace humans. Humans set the tone; they can highlight nuances that were already present in the general idea, but for some reason you didn't notice. So, people wrote to me that I used AI, but the problem is that if I had, I would have done so shamelessly and openly. I don't see a problem with using AI on a forum, but the complaint here is that you're not doing it YOURSELF, meaning you're being dishonest, even though your answer may be honest, the emphasis is elsewhere. And when people wrote to me that I used AI, but I didn't, you might think it's a compliment—that I'm very smart, right? No! Because when you get that impression, for example, you wrote a comment and people say, "He used AI," it means, first and foremost, that the text or script is perceived as "impersonal," or that they don't understand a direct request or question when they respond. AI is a wonderful tool, but we still have to remember: garbage in, garbage out.

This way you can experience any life, under the guise of a past life.

Your conceptual ego-mind should serve "God" and not the other way around. Your conceptual ego-mind drains your soul energy, for example, when you pretend or deceive yourself. Trust your feelings sometimes. If you can't understand what feelings are—they're an abstract concept for you, seemingly non-existent—then try to recognize where they are in your body when you experience a particular emotion, or when a thought, negative for example, occurs. Your feelings, your soul—they are God. So, everything is God, but don't get hung up on these ideas to begin with.

That's right, "awakening" isn't the experience of "awakening." You can be emotionally depressed, dislike something, or you can be inspired and elated. But Being is simply Being. It's when life itself manifests through you. And that in itself is incredibly cool, and it's much closer to Non-duality in the embodiment of duality than when someone talks about it. Take a little (no need for much, haha) example from children; they may not know anything about life, but they are closer to the Truth.

Many have probably heard of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Halting Problem. Here's an expanded version. So, let's get started, let's get intrigued. Don't rush, don't spoil anything, and don't jump to conclusions, even if it triggers you. Enjoy the journey of the mind. I'll just say right away that this material was created in collaboration with "Rubicon of Knowledge," and I also used an English translator, so there may be some confusion. Please keep that in mind and allow for that. And since I'm involved in science, I do it. Therefore, I find this material quite interesting, but don't take it at face value. «Imagine a number that mathematicians fear, not because it's infinite, not because it's unpronounceable, but because its very knowledge could destroy mathematics. This number isn't hidden in fantasy or conjecture. It's real, existing on the number line between zero and one, where probability and harmony typically reside. And yet, it brings chaos. If someone were to know all its digits, all of mathematics would collapse, theorems would become meaningless, proofs unnecessary, and the truth too easy. This number contains all the answers, but that's precisely why no one should know it. It sounds like a legend, but it's not a myth; it's pure, proven mathematics. Encoded within this number are the fates of all algorithms, all formulas, all questions that could ever be asked. It knows which programs will stop, and which will spin in an endless loop forever. It knows which equations have solutions and which don't, and hidden somewhere in its infinite digits are the answers to all the mysteries that have tormented humanity since the time of Euclid. This number is called the Gregory-Chaitin (Catalan) constant, or more simply, "Omega." Imagine there is a number that can be written as the decimal fraction 0. ... and then... an infinite, completely random sequence of digits. But each digit isn't random in the usual sense; it's not simply the result of a coin toss; it's the result of an infinite number of calculations. If you knew enough of the first digits of this sequence, you could answer any mathematical question. Any. From the Riemann hypothesis to the fate of infinite series. Everything that can be formalized as a program is already woven into this fraction. This number doesn't just store answers; it encodes the very principles of cognition; it's like the shadow of logic itself, the imprint of the limits of what can be calculated. There's no mysticism in his definition, but rather a cold, mathematical poetry: Omega is the probability that a randomly written program will eventually terminate. It seems like a simple idea. But beyond it lies the fundamental limit of knowledge. And if you feel a slight unease, you're right, because where there's a limit, there's always the temptation to cross it. The history of Omega began long before Gregory Chaitin conceived it. This Argentine-American mathematician worked in the 1960s, trying to understand the boundary between knowledge and ignorance. But before him, others laid the foundations for the world of algorithms. Almost a century ago, a young Englishman named Alan Turing asked a question that changed the course of science. In 1936, he presented the idea of a universal machine, a theoretical device capable of performing any calculation if given the right instructions. Essentially, it was the prototype of the modern computer. But Turing posed a deeper question: could a program be created that could analyze other programs and accurately determine whether they would ever terminate or run forever? The question sounds technical. But it conceals a philosophical horror: the question of the predictability of thought, the boundary between reason and chaos. Turing proved that such a universal program does not exist; no algorithm can determine whether any other program will terminate. This is known as the Halting Problem. Imagine you're writing a program, you run it, and wait—a minute, an hour, a day, a month passes. You don't know if it's frozen forever or just hasn't finished its calculations yet. It would seem possible to create a freeze detector, a program that would simply tell you the truth, but Turing showed that this is impossible in principle. He did this with stunning elegance—he assumed such a program existed and called it H (from "Halt"). H takes any program as input and decides whether it will halt or not. Everything is logical until Turing suggested playing with logic itself. Turing creates a new program, P. It takes a description of the program as input and checks what H predicts about it. If H decides that the program will halt, P does the opposite—it goes into an infinite loop. If H predicts that the program won't halt, P immediately terminates. Now try running P on itself; what will H predict? If P predicts that P will halt, the program hangs; if it predicts that it won't halt, the program halts immediately. In both cases, the prediction turns out to be false. This is a perfect logical loop, a program that breaks the very idea of prediction. Thus, Turing proved that there is no universal algorithm capable of solving all problems; there are programs whose behavior is impossible to predict in advance, not because of complexity, but because of the very nature of computation. And at that moment, mathematics first saw a crack in its foundations, and from this crack, 30 years later, Omega was born. Turing left behind a question that made mathematicians uneasy. If we cannot know the fate of each individual program, perhaps we can learn something on average, for example, what percentage of all possible programs ever halt. At first glance, this seems like statistics, but answering this question requires an understanding of the entire structure of the computational world. In the 1960s, a young mathematician, Gregory Chaitin, tried to look at this problem differently. He proposed imagining all possible programs, short and long, simple and chaotic, written in all possible combinations of zeros and ones. Imagine flipping a coin. Heads is 1, tails is 0. You get a random sequence of bits—that's your program. You run it. It might print "hello, world" and stop, or it might loop and never finish. Then Chaitin asked a question that at first glance sounds harmless: what is the probability that a randomly generated program will ever stop? The answer was the Omega number. Chaitin's constant is the probability that a random program will stop. This number is between zero and one, like any probability, but it has a strange property. It's absolutely precisely defined, although it can't be calculated. Each digit of Omega carries information about the fate of an infinite number of programs. If you knew the first, say, one hundred thousand digits of Omega, you could predict the behavior of all programs up to one hundred thousand bits long. Every program that could be written would either stop or not. And the digits of Omega already contain this answer. To get a sense of scale, imagine that for any mathematical problem, you can write a program that will search for a solution. If a solution exists, the program will find it and terminate; if not, it will loop forever. Knowing enough Omega digits, you can tell for sure whether the program will find the answer, and thus know the solution to the problem. Everything comes down to a single sequence of digits. Omega is like a library of all mathematical truths, only the page in this book is forever locked. But long before Chaitin, there was a man who realized that logic itself has a hidden limit: his name was Kurt Gödel. In 1931, he published two theorems that shook the foundations of mathematics. The first asserted that in any sufficiently complex system, there will always be statements that are true but cannot be proven within that system. The second went even further, arguing that a system cannot prove its own consistency—in other words, mathematics cannot prove that mathematics is infallible. These ideas sounded like philosophy, but they were the most rigorous mathematical proofs. Gödel showed that in any closed logical structure there is a statement that is outside its language, as if chess could not prove that there is no way to make an infinite move. The world of formulas turned out to be not a flawless machine, but a system with an internal shadow, a zone where knowledge ceases to be attainable. When Chaitin created Omega, he unexpectedly combined the ideas of Turing and Gödel. The halting problem showed that the fate of any program cannot be predicted, and Gödel's theorem showed that all truths cannot be proven. Omega became a bridge between these limitations. If we could calculate all its digits, we would know which programs halt and which don't, we would know all mathematical truths, which theorems are provable and which are false. We could discover whether mathematics itself is consistent, because one can write a program that searches for proofs of a contradiction, and if one exists, the program will halt; if not, it will run forever. Omega already knows how this search will end; if someone could read its digits to the end, they would discover whether mathematics itself is self-destructive. This knowledge would destroy the entire idea of proof, because if you can simply look at a number and find the answer, mathematics itself ceases to be a process of reasoning; it becomes a database where everything has already been decided. Fortunately, Omega is protected from us by the very nature of computation. Chaitin proved that it is uncomputable, which doesn't just mean it's too complex; it means it's impossible to create a program that could calculate its digits, because to do so would require solving the halting problem, which, as Turing showed, is fundamentally impossible. You can figure out the first few digits by experimenting with short programs that clearly halt, but the further you go, the more frequently you encounter programs whose fates are indeterminate: some may terminate in a second, others in billions of years, and still others never. And you won't know which of the three categories the next one belongs to until you've lived forever. Omega exists. It has a precise value, but it's forever hidden, not because someone hid it, but because logic itself has forbidden the path to it. This number exists, but it's unattainable, like a horizon that recedes as you take a step forward. The digits of Omega appear random; if you write them out in a row, you'll find no pattern, no formula, no symmetry, no repeating fragments—and this isn't just an illusion. Chaitin proved that they are truly random in the strict mathematical sense. This means that no algorithm can reproduce an Omega sequence shorter than the sequence itself. In other words, Omega is incompressible information, each digit a bit of pure chaos, hiding the answer to an infinite number of logical questions. This is paradoxical. After all, in mathematics, we're accustomed to seeking patterns, simplifications, and symmetry, but here we have perfect order, which appears as complete disorder. Omega is chaos that obeys the strictest possible laws. And somewhere between these opposites resides a strange beauty, as if the universe itself decided to joke about our desire to explain everything. With Omega, we saw for the first time the limits not just of calculations, but of knowledge itself. It demonstrates that there are truths that objectively exist, but are fundamentally unattainable. They are independent of our minds or tools; they cannot be discovered at all, no matter the technology or the intellect. This isn't temporary ignorance, not "we don't know yet"—it's proven, something we will never know. It's not a death sentence, but a fundamental law woven into the fabric of logic. Mathematics has always seemed like an island of absolute order, but now we know that even on this island, there's a shore beyond which an ocean of the unknowable begins. We can see its waves, hear their roar, but we can't enter them. And perhaps this is precisely what makes mathematics human: it knows more than we do, yet still holds secrets. If you think about it, Omega is a protective mechanism of reality, like a fuse in an electrical circuit, preventing knowledge from exceeding a safe level. If we could calculate all its numbers, we would see all truths and all contradictions; mathematics would cease to be a system capable of standing on its own feet. Our mind strives to know everything, but not all knowledge can withstand it. "Omega" seems to be built into the very structure of existence, reminding us that there is a limit. If we could see everything at once, the very meaning of searching would disappear; knowledge without limits collapses the system, just as an infinite current burns out a wire. And perhaps this is precisely why "Omega" is uncalculable. The world itself has ensured that we do not touch what can destroy us not physically, but logically, from within. "Omega" is a reminder of humility, that even the most perfect structures contain mystery. The human mind is accustomed to seeing science as a ladder to absolute knowledge. But the higher we climb, the more clearly we understand there is no summit. And there is no defeat in this. This isn't an admission of powerlessness, but an awareness of scale. Our laws, formulas, and proofs aren't walls, but windows through which we peer into infinity. And if somewhere beyond the horizon lies a number that knows everything but doesn't reveal itself, then the world is wiser than we thought. Perhaps "Omega" truly does kill theory, but only theory that believes in the complete dominance of reason. It leaves room for mystery, for respect for what cannot be explained, and perhaps this is precisely what makes knowledge safe.» But Reality isn't mathematics. Mathematics is part of Reality, logic is a part of mathematics. Moreover, in mathematics there are even moments when you find yourself on the verge of epistemology (but that's a separate discussion). . If we apply Niels Bohr's principle of complementarity, he once said that science is a way of understanding the world, but so is art, simply another aspect of it. God is "Infinite, powerful Imagination."

Science doesn't operate on faith. I say this as someone who studies science. Science operates on experience (not quite facts yet), if we're talking about physics, and physics doesn't answer the question "Why?" it only provides explanations and descriptions. Science doesn't say this is the truth and we rely on it—it says, "Experience shows," and then the explanation begins. If science operated on faith, none of us would use a computer, for example. Furthermore, there's one curious point, again in physics, well, because I study it, and that's why I'm using it as an example. While it's possible to derive, for example, Newton's theory from the postulates and "apparatus" of the theory of relativity (not the laws, they're not the same thing), it's NOT possible to derive the theory of relativity from Newtonian physics. It can literally be GUESSED, and then, naturally, tested experimentally, preferably repeatedly, and only then does it become reliable and usable. In general, when it comes to deep science, like quantum mechanics, yes, you really do need to guess first; this happens often; the scientist's intuition is key. And yes, there's no absolute certainty in science, only certainty within the framework of the application. If something truly extraordinary is suddenly discovered in nature, then it's an immediate yes, it will be truly remarkable; science isn't dogma. But such things require extraordinary evidence.

A rational approach isn't always right; it's more accurate to say "purely rational," rather than "rational in principle." And here's why. There are two cases in history. The first is about a woman who underwent a lobotomy. She lost her sense of emotion and became very rational, seemingly living her life to the fullest. But here's the twist. She seems to make decisions, and everything seems logical, but she's constantly making mistakes, often miscalculating everything. The funny thing is, it actually looks smart, and it's smart. But something's not quite right. The second case is about Phineas Gage, whose forehead was smashed in with a crowbar. His rational side began to suffer, and he began acting as if he'd had a little too much to drink, but he appeared sober. These two cases demonstrate the importance of both rational and emotional-intuitive thinking. They're one and the same. You won't be able to make decisions and correctly assess a situation if you use a purely rational approach. You can even look at the stories of convinced rationalists and see how wrong they are about so many things, and sometimes it's really funny. Personally, I once had an unpleasant situation a long time ago. Extremely unpleasant. And then the person answered me at the end, "Not everything can be controlled by the mind." And I said to him, "HOW? HOW? Did you do that????? He outwitted me so much, he made every moment so dangerous, he simply destroyed me.It was beautiful, albeit unpleasant. So yes, not everything can be controlled by the mind."

Healthy skepticism is a useful function. And yet, when you delve deeper, you discover that skepticism, while useful, is still a parasite on the mind. Those who understand, understand. A healthy ego is one without parasites in your mind, that is, unnecessary beliefs, fears, limitations, and much more. But to make the ego healthy, constant self-improvement is still necessary.