New Video: 8 Unique & Original Proofs Of God

[Mu_]

@Synchronicity @Synchronicity I mean it’s interesting, but who or what is determining time in this theory. 

if it is truely just a self contained event that starts with no cause, it is One and only it could determine if there is time or not, humans have no domain in this subject. This self contained world could grow things that are extensions of it/it’s starting point who may make up concepts about itself and talk about things called time and call it seconds or blips but again it’s a self contained one event. So that’s a whole other bag of worms. 

Edited yesterday at 04:48 AM by Mu_

[Synchronicity]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Synchronicity Conventional logic requires that all finite things have a cause and they cannot be their own cause nor exist for no reason whatsoever.

It is highly unconventional to say that a kangaroo exists for no reason and with no cause.

You’re thinking of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, in conventional logic 

That’s actually been very controversial & there’s many papers debunking it, because it assumes that a genuine starting point isn’t possible 

So if you want to claim it’s illogical, then by all means we can look into that. But it’s not a settled matter in conventional logic. Uncaused starting points don’t violate convention anymore than an uncaused infinity does 

In an infinite reality, a kangaroo would also be uncaused & there for no reason, because it’d have a never-ending chain of causation before it. That chain would’ve never been caused or created by something & so, by the transitive property, the kangaroo would be uncaused (existing for no ultimate reason) 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Why do you exist?

What is the logic of your existence?

And if you claim to be unlimited, why are you unlimited? What is the logic of your unlimitedness?

I tried to answer all the above questions with one larger stream of consciousness. I will stipulate I used ai in no way whatsoever to clean up these words, or add anything to my own. My best regards:

To experience & learn everything.

Experience is to be explored in all forms. To do so, an infinite number of configurations of experience must be generated. The system of generation requires definitions. Definitions for reality are created, at base, via numbers. Mathematics serves to outline basic boundaries and descriptions, by assigning variables to create scenarios – experiences.

 Just as an algebraic equation with 2 variables serves to describe all points on the line, from 0->infinity, there exists an infinite number of variables in an infinite number of configurations to describe reality. Curves, circles, lines etc & their volumetric definitions via integration. An equation – a relation – will exist to describe the slope of Leo’s nose, the distinct lines of your ears, your fingerprints, etcetera… All mapped out to form this ‘3D’ space. Leo can, on these terms, spawn in any which form. In fact – Leo MUST spawn in all forms – some with alien configurations, to bring about this experience God craves.

On top of this static form, experience is to serve God, by God providing the time dimension. So shit can occur. Time is completely illusionary. In this way, frequency & vibration serve to describe reality to the recurring BEAT of time. The sun rises to a frequency, sets to a frequency. Your heart pumps to a frequency. You blink – frequency. The Earth rotates – frequency. You breathe - frequency.

So, on top of the infinity of Leo’s forms that must manifest, an infinite number of realities – a tesseract – of all experiences in time, must exist. An infinite number of dimensions. In one dimension, Leo is experiencing reading this passage as he sits at a dark wooden desk, on a black craptop & assessing its validity. In another, he is reading this passage on his phone waiting at a restaurant, formulating a response that will cause much consternation to Tash. In another, he is an alien on a space station, reacting to the stupidity of these words. In one reality, Tash is actually speaking these words to Leo, and we have a pre-existing physical friendship. And on and on and on into infinity. And then on again. And again and again and again. For even as numbers span into infinity, that can act to describe all these situations, so too can the space between zero and one be divided into infinite slices. In this way zero can never reach one, as it can be sliced into ever more fractions… 1.1, 1.12, 1.13 - > infinity. The space between and everything described is just… infinity.

All this, so that Leo can experience everything, all infinite configurations. God is you, experiencing in this way.

Because the alternative? The pure horror of ever knowing. No surprises. The pure banality of existence with no friction to create. No learning. No new.

Endless configurations to create endless experience. To learn everything.

God chooses even pain and suffering when he manifests as Leo, over all knowing. He divides so he can have a surprise. Have a dream. Have Love. Joy. Happiness. Have pain & suffering.

He chooses to forget – by manifesting as Leo.

God is so greedy, he wants all the experience to himself!

😊

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

But I just use Classical Logic in daily life, cause well… obviously I can. I can place 2 items next to 2 others & always have 4

I'm not denying classical logic per se, I'm just saying it needs to be fully applied and its ramifications traced through completely. The problem is that classical logicians stop short of this. They don't see the radical ramifications of classic logic as applied to the problem of existence and ontology.

How do you get something from nothing? Classical logic doesn't go that deep. Although it could if pushed. Which is basically what I did with my proofs.

Edited yesterday at 04:53 AM by Leo Gura

[Synchronicity]

2 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

@Synchronicity @Synchronicity I mean it’s interesting, but who or what is determine time in this theory. 

if it is truely just a self contained event that starts with no cause, it is One and only it could determine if there is time or not, humans have no domain in this subject. This self contained world could grow things that are extensions of it/it’s starting point who may make up concepts about itself and talk about things called time and call it seconds or blips but again it’s a self contained one event. So that’s a while other bag of worms. 

Sure yeah, I’m not trying to tell you I’ve settled what time is. Nor *how* it could have a beginning without cause (cause yeah, let’s be honest, it’s a very weird idea Lol) 

My only point in this discussion was to show you that it’s a genuine option (no stranger than an eternal reality) & that therefore, an eternal reality isn’t tautological 

Or at least, it’s not a classical tautology 

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

In an infinite reality, a kangaroo would also be uncaused & there for no reason, because it’d have a never-ending chain of causation before it. That chain would’ve never been caused or created by something & so, by the transitive property, the kangaroo would be uncaused (existing for no ultimate reason) 

That's right, but logicians don't grasp the significance of that.

Everything is uncaused, but people are blind to the magic of God since they don't see the infinity at work in all things.

Edited yesterday at 05:02 AM by Leo Gura

[Synchronicity]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm not denying classical logic per se, I'm just saying it needs to be fully applies and its ramifications trace through completely. The problem is that classical logicians stop short of this. They don't see the radical ramifications of classic logic as applied to the problem of existence and ontology.

How do you get something from nothing? Classical logic doesn't go there. Although it could if pushed.

I think your burden would be, that someone could come along & have a direct experience of their own & see some new logic of their own which - for example - says that transparent swans are impossible 

You would need a way to show that your Awakening beats their’s, because you’re saying that this logic applies to everyone (not just you) 

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

I’m further in the child & imbecile direction you mentioned Lol 

I’m whacky as hell 

Your stuff is not illogical, it is hyper-logical.

My worldview accounts for that. I call that hyperbolic logic.

[Mu_]

2 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

Sure yeah, I’m not trying to tell you I’ve settled what time is. Nor *how* it could have a beginning without cause (cause yeah, let’s be honest, it’s a very weird idea Lol) 

My only point in this discussion was to show you that it’s a genuine option (no stranger than an eternal reality) & that therefore, an eternal reality isn’t tautological 

Or at least, it’s not a classical tautology 

@Synchronicity is this theory also implying this type of reality could end, and then begin again with no connection or cause to the previous one?  And in that space where one begins and the other ends, there isn’t “nothing” happening in that transition. lol 

[Synchronicity]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

That right, but logicians don't grasp the significance of that.

Everything is uncaused, but people are blind to the magic of God since they don't see the infinity.

Mmmm… I can grant you that one 

There are logicians who make a living dealing with such topics, but I can agree that they don’t go nearly as deep into it as they could or should. They don’t quite see how trippy it is for both options to result in everything being uncaused. They could do better work there 

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

I think your burden would be, that someone could come along & have a direct experience of their own & see some new logic of their own which - for example - says that transparent swans are impossible 

You would need a way to show that your Awakening beats their’s, because you’re saying that this logic applies to everyone (not just you) 

My claim is that they could not have a logic in which they see that reality is not One or Infinity. Or if they did, it would be self-deception.

Other than that, they can have all sorts of weird applications of logic which I have not considered thus far.

Edited yesterday at 04:59 AM by Leo Gura

[Synchronicity]

1 minute ago, Mu_ said:

@Synchronicity is this theory also implying this type of reality could end, and then begin again with no connection or cause to the previous one?  And in that space where one begins and the other ends, there isn’t “nothing” happening in that transition. lol 

Yeah, it could end 

To make it an easier example, picture one 50 trillion year stretch of time. No such thing as a “before the start” & no such thing as an “after the end” 

Just a 50 trillion year blip 

No more realities before or after. It’s all still just one reality. And all of reality is just a 50 trillion year stretch 

[Mu_]

6 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

Yeah, it could end 

To make it an easier example, picture one 50 trillion year stretch of time. No such thing as a “before the start” & no such thing as an “after the end” 

Just a 50 trillion year blip 

No more realities before or after. It’s all still just one reality. And all of reality is just a 50 trillion year stretch 

Who would be tracking this start and end to even call it that. Who or what is saying there is time in this theory. Time is just a theory at this point and this theory your presenting is saying a thing called time which hasn’t been proven yet is in it. 
 

it kinda feels like a theory that insists on 4 dimensional triangles need to be disproved before we can accept oneness. 

Edited yesterday at 05:07 AM by Mu_

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

In an infinite reality, a kangaroo would also be uncaused & there for no reason

I do say that within Infinity everything has an ultimate reason. And that reason is LOVE.

So the kangaroo is there because LOVE requires it.

[Synchronicity]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I do say that within Infinity everything has an ultimate reason. And that reason is LOVE.

So the kangaroo is there because LOVE requires it.

Since you’re saying that Infinity is Love though, you’d also be saying that the kangaroo’s reason (Love) is identical to the infinitude before it (the causeless chain)? 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

the kangaroo’s reason (Love) is identical to the infinitude before it (the causeless chain)? 

The whole chain is LOVE, so the kangaroo is just part of the chain. Like the reason for a brick in a house is the house.

A kangaroo is just one brick within LOVE.

Edited yesterday at 05:11 AM by Leo Gura

[Synchronicity]

3 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Who would be tracking this start and end to even call it that. Who or what is saying there is time in this theory. Time is just a theory at this point and this theory you’re presenting is saying a thing called time which hasn’t been proven yet is in it. 

Could be all manner of things. If we’re still talking about classically logical options, then time could be 

* a physical sequence of frames 

* old moments collapsing & new ones being created on the fly (besides the first one, cause that one would be uncreated in our example Lol) 

* time being fluid & non-discrete, like a stretched singularity which doesn’t require points in-between moments 

It’s rather besides my main point. We could come up with all sorts of logical options for what time could be in our example 

We don’t really need to pick one, unless we wanna now try & prove what time itself is Lol 

[Synchronicity]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The whole chain is LOVE, so the kangaroo is just part of the chain. Like the reason for a brick in a house is the house.

A kangaroo is just one brick within LOVE.

Gotcha, then yeah, that’s basically what I was getting at with trying to correctly summarize what you were saying 

[Mu_]

 

1 minute ago, Synchronicity said:

Could be all manner of things. If we’re still talking about classically logical options, then time could be 

* a physical sequence of frames 

* old moments collapsing & new ones being created on the fly (besides the first one, cause that one would be uncreated in our example Lol) 

* time being fluid & non-discrete, like a stretched singularity which doesn’t require points in-between moments 

It’s rather besides my main point. We could come up with all sorts of logical options for what time could be in our example 

We don’t really need to pick one, unless we wanna now try & prove what time itself is Lol 

I’m not sure if we need to prove time but your theory depends on it since your saying time which hasn’t been qualified yet can extend for a length and stop in this uncaused finite reality. 
 

in fact this theory depends on time being real in it to be a grounds for the disproval of the other proof I started with. And yet you or I don’t know what time is to begin with.  Your now saying you could theorize ways in which time could be to work in this fictitious idea when you or I don’t know what any of it is to begin with or if it’s even real to start. 
 

Leo is right, logic’ can come up with all sorts of ways to believe something. 

[Synchronicity]

14 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

it kinda feels like a theory that insists on 4 dimensional triangles need to be disproved before we can accept oneness. 

I mean… I don’t know what to tell ya. This is how classical logic works. If you want to conventionally prove Oneness, you gotta jump through these hoops, otherwise you haven’t conventionally proven Oneness 

Claiming to Awaken to Oneness is one thing. But claiming you have some classically logical proof for it, is another 

You gotta walk the walk, if you really have a proof of that. Or at least, a proof of that kind

As an after-thought, 4-dimensional triangles are another trippy topic Lol They’re usually called hyper-triangles 

Edited yesterday at 05:19 AM by Synchronicity