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

[Someone here]

@Cred I know but what I'm saying is you haven't figured out anything. Your so called answer to the question of " how did it all began?" Is just philosophical schemes and mental models. It doesn't answer the question. In this work there is one fundamental existential question at the heart of it all..what the fuck is happening now? This is basically the question. What is your answer exactly?  You creating logical maps is only getting you in the wrong direction.  Every word you speak is getting you in the wrong direction .because I'm asking what is THIS?  Look at your screen now ..I'm asking what is this screen ? You can't answer that question with anything you say .

[kavaris]

@Cred Are you not seeing how many ppl are in disagreement w/ you? Thats a sign that ya gotta like, reevaluate dude.

[kavaris]

13 hours ago, Cred said:

i believe that all axioms in mathematics can be derived from the existence of some set of fragments, of which my 8 are a subset. Further, I claim that it can be proven, that these fragments need to exist, since if they don't, reality would collapse.

You have no idea what you are saying, and thats a problem. Its a nice idea, that is - If you were hanging out w/ someone talking about such things, this would be an interesting idea to share. But clearly you are misaligned w/ everyone here, as we do not see the world as simply as you.

Why 8?... Why not 4?... *(Dont answer this question, its meant to be rhetorical)*

In fact, you can simplify everything you are saying to just be "Everything = language", and then explore what that even means, through things you can prove to others (or better yet is to prove it to yourself, for it will eventually lead to a place where only you can be the observer of), instead of it feeling like you are the only man in the room who understands it.

Many people have come in here saying "Aha! I got it. Theres 8 things... No wait, theres 7 things... No wait, its encapsulated in one over arching..." I mean, when you take LsD you will see that theres quite alot of things that it could be, sometimes 4, sometimes 5, sometimes 6 or 7 or 8... i mean the list goes on as to what those types of things could be.

The part that you may be able to get everyone to agree w/ is that "everything is language". But thats where things have to be investigated. And, not just claiming, making claims to these arbitrary things. You have to dig deep into "Ousia". Look up Ousia. Thats the most important part (Hint it means "You" or being, these things you are trying to touch on... Thats a clue. Why not appreciate it?)

Edited 17 hours ago by kavaris

[Cred]

It feels to me, you are attacking me more than my theory. Have I attacked you? If so I would like to know when I did that. I feel hurt by your rhetoric

Edited 17 hours ago by Cred

[Someone here]

37 minutes ago, Cred said:

It feels to me, you are attacking me more than my theory. Have I attacked you? If so I would like to know when I did that. I feel hurt by your rhetoric

Not at all. You claim you know the absolute answer to the big questions. You said that .

In short paragraph: what is existence? Why is it here ?

Go ahead .

[Joshe]

18 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Not at all. You claim you know the absolute answer to the big questions. You said that .

In short paragraph: what is existence? Why is it here ?

Go ahead .

Kavaris was out of line here at the end. It turned into personal attack. Cred is obviously in good faith willing to address any legit criticisms and is sticking to the subject matter. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Joshe

[Someone here]

11 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Kavaris was out of line here at the end. It turned into personal attack. Cred is obviously in good faith willing to address any legit criticisms and is sticking to the subject matter. 

But you can't take him seriously that's the point he is a little cheeky and devilish that's the style he chooses to express himself. 

[kavaris]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

But you can't take him seriously that's the point he is a little cheeky and devilish that's the style he chooses to express himself. 

I appreciate you defending me, but hey, youd be better off not entertaining any of this. I wouldnt call any of that cheeky or devilish, but lets not get caught up in what is a center of what we think any of this is (As we will be here all day, infecting the forum w/, whatever names they might want to call it)

Edited 15 hours ago by kavaris

[Carl-Richard]

The logical "proofs" are question begging. You can insert any concept x and justify it. For example, "effluviousness is a necessary quality of reality. Let's assume it's false. If it's false, reality would not be able to effluve. Q.E.D." The question is why is the quality a necessary quality (for explaining some other quality)?

In Analytical Idealism, the fragment separates itself from the Absolute through the process of "dissociation" (of establishing a boundary). That's it. Do you need more than that?

 

EDIT: Bruh "effluviousness" is actually a word 💀 I thought I made it up.

Edited 14 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[kavaris]

13 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

EDIT: ... "effluviousness"

Reminds me of effluescence, though iuno if they're related.

[kavaris]

@CredTeam

"Allegory of the Cave". See now thats something you could try to emulate, in order to take what yous are saying, and remix it in a way that makes sense. As you are almost (almost) writing/speaking (or could be speaking) in a Socratic dialogue fashion, but you are like, one character, or so it feels like. If there was two characters, u could have a main char., that says /or writes such things as "Theres seven sets in the geometry of sets" And another saying "What makes you say that theres seven", then you have a piece that not only removes yourself from the equation (replacing your self w/ two chars.) but also, you can roleplay/workshop all of those ideas, in a way that can better gauge if what you are saying makes any sense or not, As you can start to ask yourself (your main char. whos posetting those statements) all of the Socratic type questions, in order to bridge from "What you think you know" to "What there is TO know". Hopefully youll take an ounce of what im tryina tell you, otherwise its like, we are tryina read what you are saying, and you arent reciprocating, but rather you are saying whatever, or atleast i cant understand it in its *current form. Good luck.

Edited 13 hours ago by kavaris

[Cred]

For those who are skeptical whether the Fragment has applications, I used the model to analyze sadhus:

 

[Cred]

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You can insert any concept x and justify it.

No I don't think so. One example would be "toughness" or "hardness". You can't say that the attribute hardness is necessary for the universe to exist because a universe where no hardness exists would be imaginable. It would just be a universe that only contains gas or something.

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

In Analytical Idealism, the fragment separates itself from the Absolute through the process of "dissociation" (of establishing a boundary). That's it. Do you need more than that?

Yes of course you can summarize all 8 aspects into one but than you would just have another useless abstract metaphysical theory with empty concepts that has no actual explanatory power.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Cred said:

For those who are skeptical whether the Fragment has applications, I used the model to analyze sadhus:

Application does not mean better than other options. I can apply a seriously inflationary cosmology and it will still be inflationary. Why is the application better than other options? (By what account do you ascribe its status as a Theory of Everything and not say Analytical Idealism?)

[Cred]

15 hours ago, Someone here said:

In this work there is one fundamental existential question at the heart of it all..what the fuck is happening now? This is basically the question. What is your answer exactly?  You creating logical maps is only getting you in the wrong direction.  Every word you speak is getting you in the wrong direction .because I'm asking what is THIS?  Look at your screen now ..I'm asking what is this screen ?

Speaking of explanatory power, let's tackle this objection.

I completely agree with the first sentence. What I don't agree with is the claim that the Fragment does not help in analyzing immediate reality.

It might have been a rhetorical question but let's actually analyze the computer.

My claim is that there are infinite ways to engage with a computer and all of them are manifestations of the Fragment.

1. You could ask: "What am I sensing?". You are only able to even ask this question bc of Sensibility of being (former name: Interaction) Without Sen' you don't have sensation
2. You could ask: "What does it weigh?". This is Differentiality of being bc weight is a way of differentiating.
3. You could ask: "What do I want to do with it?". This is Impulsivity of being bc an action requires an impulse.
4. You could ask: "What can I do with it?". This is Potentiality of being bc seeing potential requires potentiality.
5. You could ask: "How does this object fill space? How tall is it? How wide is it?". This implies Spaciality of being bc filling space requires spaciality
6. You could see it as a whole that is made out of multiple parts. This requires Wholeness and Differentiality of being.
7. You can just see it as the symbol "computer" which you've learned from other people. When you do this you are syncing up with the narrative of the computer and this requires Simultaneity of being.
8. You can ask multiple different questions in a sequence, but this requires Sequenciality of being
9. Any way you can see it results from one or a combination of these. You are welcome to try to give me exceptions.
10. There is actually one exception which is when you see it as emptiness sunyata. This requires you to shut off all of the fragments of being. I say this is easier to do if you know about all the different fragments.

Edited 2 hours ago by Cred