I found a logical proof for Reality=Spirit=Matter=Idea

[Cred]

It is February 28. at 7:00 am and I've found it. I did not sleep. I needed the answer and I got it. This is not clickbait.

I'm now more convinced than ever that ontomodality can provide the answer to all the most important questions of the universe and I just figured out the first and most important one which is:

How did it all begin?

The argument is very logical which surprises me tbh. I did not expect that it would be possible to answer this question logically.

Are you ready? Maybe put some coffee into your mouth since you might need something to spit out. Also, maybe give yourself some time to move into the state of not knowing and loosen your egos grip on your current worldview. I just googled and found out that there exist a philosopher who proposed this named Kit Fine who called it fragmentalism which is fitting. However, it seems he did not find the fragments.

THE ANSWER

1. At the beginning there was only the Absolute. It has infinite aspects but no differentiation between them.

2. Then, suddenly, something separated itself from the absolute. This is the Fragment. 

3. This Thing must necessarily have at least these seven aspects of the Absolute: 

3.1. Impulse, Difference, Temporality, Spaciousness, Wholeness, Interaction, Simultaneity.

4. Proofs of 3. and 3.1 by contradiction:

4.1. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Impulse. If it didn't have Impulse, it would lack the necessary impulse to separate. Q.E.D.

4.2. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that Fragment does not have the aspect of Difference. Without Difference, separation is not possible. Q.E.D.

4.3 Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Temporality. Without Temporality, the sequence "not separated, then separated" would not have been possible. Q.E.D.

4.4. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Spaciousness. Without Spaciousness, the Fragment would not have anywhere to separate into. Q.E.D.

4.5. Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Wholeness. Without Wholeness, the will and the difference would not have anything to hold on to for the separation. Q.E.D.

4.6 Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Interaction. Without Interaction, all the aspects of the absolute could not have interacted to help separate the Spirit. Q.E.D.

4.7 Let's assume 4. is false and claim that the Fragment does not have the aspect of Simultaneity. Without Simultaneity, all the aspects could not have interacted at the same time which is necessary, since no subset of the seven is able to make a separation as shown in the previous proofs. Q.E.D.

This seems to imply that reality=idea=matter=spirit=consciousness which is hella satisfying and just straight up combines all the existing respected metaphysics. So we have Buddha=Platon=Upanishads in one compact formula lol.

• Why fragment=idea. All 7 are pure concepts, yet they produce matter, since:
• Why fragment=matter. Contemplate why matter would not be able to exist without any one of these.
• Why fragment=spirit. The way I discovered the fragments, is not by observing matter but by observing consciousness and neurodiversity. All the neurodivergencies and all the personality structures seem to be a combination of these 7. I think it can be proven that there can be no mind outside these 7. Try to contemplate this. However, in contrast to matter, consciousness seems to be able to "turn off" these aspects and merge with the absolute, which is what enlightenment is.

I think one possible next move is to formulize it more narrowly into mathematics, but it might be the case that 1. 2. and 3. are axioms that can only be intuitively true. I will also research Kit Fine. If this is legit, we might have to spam him with emails lol.

Edited 5 hours ago by Cred

[integration journey]

Be careful with all-caps titles on here. It’s in the guidelines I think. 

Edited yesterday at 06:00 PM by integration journey

[Hojo]

Maya says you exist cause someone measured you.

The Sanskrit term māyā (माया) is fundamentally related to measurement, often interpreted in philosophical contexts as "that which measures" "the act of measuring" or "the power to create form". While commonly translated as "illusion" in modern contexts, its roots are deeply tied to the concepts of defining, limiting, and giving shape to the boundless. 

To escape one must stop measuring. Metaphorically and physically. To create one must measure physically and metaphorically.

The random fragmentation could happen via measurement of the absolute.

Edited 21 hours ago by Hojo

[Cred]

@Hojo This is really cool I did not know this thanks a lot for sharing.

This seems notion perfectly supports my theory. (I'm aware of the danger of looking for confirmation instead of criticism)

According to ontomodality, any existing entity is well-defined with the respective amounts of each of the modes of being. If an entity has 0 of everything it is pure emptiness.

Btw. I think I have found an 8th one which is "Anticipation" (I think I will always try to spell them capital to show they are metaphysical principles)   

[Anton Rogachevski]

1. How do you conclude that facts = existence? 
2. You start your theory by assuming there is only the absolute, and this is question begging. How did you reach that conclusion? 
3. For what reason did it suddenly decide to fragment?
4. You assume the existence of change and time based on the first unquestioned axioms, and aren't "change" and "time" the same thing?
5. Ok you do need space for anything to be.
6. I didn't understand why you need "wholeness" at all
7. I can't understand why "reality=idea=matter=spirit=consciousness" how did you conclude that?

It would be much easier to say all of this in one sentence. You are consciousness itself or spirit, and you constructed all these ideas. But you could simply avoid constructing them all the same.

Just be pure consciousness

Edited 8 hours ago by Anton Rogachevski

[Cred]

@Anton Rogachevski Thanks for attacking my theory! It is a sketch and unfinished. 

2. You got that right, (1) and (2) are assumed. Based on my understanding of the big bang theory, these are not controversial or a big leap to claim at all.

3. My current best explaination for why it fragmented is that the absolute contains all possible principles and that existence happend because a subset of these happended to interact at the same time.

4. First, change is Sequenciality+Difference. (I might change Temporality back to Sequenciality. The reason why I chose temporality at first is because "Zeitlichkeit" is like a cool Heidegger word)

You are correct that "when" there was only the absolute, there was no "when". Time did not exist. I don't quite get your objection

I need time to think about the other ones

Edited 8 hours ago by Cred

[Anton Rogachevski]

Try this. Paste your theory into an AI (I love gemini's thinking model, but Claude is also supreme for this) then paste my objections, and ask it questions. It's good at making 1+1 like that.

You can pin the chat as Theory and keep coming back, asking more questions, ask it to ask you questions.

Edited 8 hours ago by Anton Rogachevski

[Cred]

6. I also found the wholeness argument the hardest to grasp. It might be wrong of course. My argument is that in order for things to interact, there has to be the possibility of "thing" first and this can non exist without wholeness. Think of non-wholeness as "radically diffuse"

If wholeness is a mode of existence, this means that emergence is just as real as reduction

Edited 8 hours ago by Cred

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Cred

My whole problem with Modal logic is that it's hypothetical and ungrounded. "This could be and this could be" ad infinitum. Let's look at what is, what is right in front of you? Not what it could or couldn't be because of some ethereal concept like time or space or whatever.

[Cred]

1. If you think about it, facts=existence is not that radical. What would be the alternative? 

[Stick]

3. It fragmented because it is everything, including fragmentation. Hence it must divide it self to be whole.

Edited 8 hours ago by Stick

[Anton Rogachevski]

2 minutes ago, Cred said:

1. If you think about it, facts=existence is not that radical. What would be the alternative? 

First define both and then explain why you are saying they are the same.

Are there facts ontologically speaking? What does it mean for a fact to exist? Where does it exist?

Edited 8 hours ago by Anton Rogachevski

[Stick]

2. There is only one absolute because anything that exist by definition has to be a part of it. If we separate something from the absolute it is absolute no more. Instead the set of separation and the thing it is separating from becomes the whole.

[Dodo]

What's the point of this exercise, makes you more conscious? Does one's awareness of being expand if they know this to be true vs not? 😀 

[Anton Rogachevski]

3 minutes ago, Stick said:

It fragmented because it is everything, including fragmentation. Hence it must divide it self to be whole.

Nice Leo Logic detected

[Stick]

I dont understand "reality=idea=matter=spirit=consciousness" though

What do you mean by sprit

[Stick]

Just now, Anton Rogachevski said:

Nice Leo Logic detected

hehe

[Anton Rogachevski]

I don't even know what "Absolute" is. This should be grounded in direct experience to contemplate it. You can't just invent an idea of an "Absolute" out of thin air.

Edited 8 hours ago by Anton Rogachevski

[Cred]

@Anton Rogachevski 

First, it is important to note that I have absolutely no idea what modal logic is😅

At the beginning, it was not my goal to end on some super abstract metaphysical theory at all. I just studied the lived experience of neurodivergent people. You can track my posting history. At the beginning I only posted about things that are directly relevant to everyday living. So we don't disagree at all here. Before I did all of this my take on metaphysics went literally like "I don't get the point of metaphysics. Isn't this just elaborate speculation?"

What happened though, is that I found that I can not understand neurodivergency deeply enough without continuing to abstract. This is how I arrived here. Neurodiversity seems to point to the strucure of spirit itself, which is why it is necessary to move to this level of abstraction.

Edit: All of these modes of existence can be observed in everyday living and are incredebly relevant, not just for theorizing, but also for self-actualization

Edited 8 hours ago by Cred

[Anton Rogachevski]

First write your thesis on what Neurodiversity is, it would be interesting to discuss.

Metaphysics is a nice mental exercise for sure! 

Edited 8 hours ago by Anton Rogachevski