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

[Stick]

Seems like this guy had a theory a century ago
https://www.instagram.com/p/DUl7BKZDG-M/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

[Cred]

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Well, this universe has hardness, correct? So you're conceding that argument.

 

I added a concrete example for clarification. Our minds tend to have a hard time actually/literally imagining things that exist outside space and time (our cognition and thinking is so deeply tied to it), but it is possible to conceive of such things. Bernardo Kastrup has a video on it called "Imagining the Crystal of Eternity" or something like that.

I acknowledge my logical error. I think at the end, I'm agreeing with you. I do think that these 8+ distinctions are illusory, but I am saying, that these are the only distictions necessary to lead to existence.

I have started to watch the video "The Crystal of Eternity & its finite archetypes" and I absolutely love it so far. It seems Bernardo Kastrup is MY GUY. My impulse now is that I want to get my theory to a spot where there are no conflicts with his model, so it can be a fluid extension of his ideas.

I like his point: "Every analytic philosopher [...] starts by conceding the existence of spacetime." and "you can not speak coherently in an internal consistent way without that presupposition". The difference is that I'm saying, that spacetime is not the only thing that is assumed, there are at least 6 more things. Also, I would go a step further and say that since without the 8+ presuppositions, conceiving reality is not possible, it also follows that existence is not possible without them. 

I love the concept of the crystal, and it fits perfectly into my theory. I also like the allegory of the cylinder. It seems that my Fragment is the set of all dualistic projections that come from the crystal. In my theory, the Fragment has separated from the absolute, but it is at the same time not really separate and not really fragmented (if it is the only Fragment that exists, there is no counterpart, so it is not a Fragment, yet it is a Fragment because there is a counterpart, which is the Absolute, but the Absolute does not exist, since it is beyond existence and non-existence. But at the same time there is no existence beyond the Absolute and so on... I think this is really nice strange-loop imagery).

The crystal seems to mean the infinite counterpart of the finite Fragment in the absolute. With the rest of the Absolute being all the ideas that can not be thought under the physical constraints of this universe.

I think this is really beautiful and it works really well on the symbolic level, with both the fragment and the crystal pointing to some mineral, symbolizing their unity and how matter arises from them, but with the crystal being the more "ideal" (purity of the crystal, transparency), infinite (infinite reflections inside) version, while the Fragment implies it is incomplete, finite and not whole.

Edited March 4 by Cred

[Cred]

Also, I love that Kastrup is into the archetypes. In my theory, the archetypes are also real and a part of the Fragment. The way, I arrived at the fragment in the first place was by deeply observing the different variations of consciousness just like Jung did. I also observed archetypes like "the scientist", "the mystic", "the explorer", "the creator", "the visionary", "the fundamentalist", "the rebel" and so on.

The way I arrived at neurodivergency was to hang out with punks with the punk being a manifestation of "the rebel". What I have noticed is, that every single one of them is severely neurodivergent. I came to the conclusion that in order to be unconventional, you have to be neurodivergent.

This led me to the conjecture, that neurodivergency points to some underlying structure from which every "hard wired" variation in consciousness stems. Through continuously cycling through observation and abstraction, I arrived where I am now.

If you think about it, it makes sense. If there are differently wired minds, this means that consciousness is a random variable with a probability distribution that can be learned through repeated sampling.

Edited March 4 by Cred

[Cred]

I just had a random cool insight when I corrected the word "point" to "spot" in the above reply. The 8+ modes of the fragment seem to all have corresponding concepts in physics. The fact that these are interdependent of each other and at the end one might be codified by the uncertainty principle in physics. It seems to state that at the end, it is impossible to grasp one of the modes with perfect certainty without the other ones disappearing. To me this seems to imply that at the end, the only thing that is certain is the absolute and that everything is one.

I def. need to polish this connection, but I think it has the potential of true 🅱️eauty.

Edited March 4 by Cred

[Cred]

Okay, the problem is when I say a mode of being is a fragment and that is a part of the fragment, the symbolism looses it's elegance since 8 sub-fragments can each exist by themselves. Also having two meanings for the word fragment is redundant.

So what I need is a structure with 8+ elements that can not sustain it's form when one element is removed. This structure exists in maths and it's called a "Brunnian link".

A Brunnian link is a loop with multiple elements that are loops themselves. Okay already really in your face strangeloop imagery. Also it has the potential to be a fractal if each of the loops is itself a brunnian link and so on.

The second thing that is satisfying is the fact that the circular loop is the common symbol for emptiness and the absolute.

They way the uncertainty principle is implemented is that if you look at the whole and try to isolate one link, the whole thing unravels and you are only left with 8 identical loops that symbolize emptiness. This is codifying the fact that there has never been something beyond the absolute and that there is no such thing as an absolute distinction.

In this new symbolic system, the bunnian link symbolizes both the crystal and the fragment.

The finiteness of the number of links in the brunnian link symbolizes the finiteness of the fragment. The circle itself is a symbol for wholeness and infinity. The unraveled link that only consists of a string symbolizes the crystal and it's purity and infinity.

Whether this theory is in any way compatible with the string theory, I have to check, but it is notable that 8 + 2 (2 = the other two dimensions in spaciality) is the amount of strings in some versions of strong theory.

I love the idea of the "link" since the link is inherently empty and depends on the rest of the system. If you have a system only made of links, that system looks like structure and substance, but in reality it is empty which is the perfect description of reality.

For those who are wondering why I'm so concerned with symbolism, it is because my theory teaches that a ton of people care about that and symbols can carry a shit ton of information at once. It makes explaining a lot easier and the theory a lot more 🅱️eautiful.

[zurew]

On 2026. 02. 28. at 6:57 PM, Cred said:

Kit Fine

You need to put the subtitles on, but this fucking guy said "I despise non-analytic philosophy, but I dont want to say that it is all bad , because im sure there were some good nazis"  😂

Edited Sunday at 09:55 PM by zurew

[Cred]

18 hours ago, zurew said:

"I despise non-analytic philosophy, but I dont want to say that it is all bad , because im sure there were some good nazis"

This is petty behavior imo. I respect non-analytical philosophers since they are not just scientists but also artists. I can highly identify with this intersection, I never wanted to do either pure science because of too much restriction nor pure art because of too much freedom. 

It seems to me that a kind of envy from alienation out of a lack in inspiration is talking out of him. Pretty sad to see.

Edited Monday at 03:08 PM by Cred

[Cred]

This conflict between an analytic philosophy and continental philosophy is very fascinating to me. It seems that analytic philosopher say: "when you use a word, also describe it". And continental philosopher say: "overexplanation kills the magic". 

I kinda get both perspectives. However, this conflict is not that present in me. And I think it is because of the state of not knowing. If I understand correctly, the methodology of Peter Ralston is to do investigate each concept very thoroughly, while not trying to get overly attached to any strict definition, and moving back into the state of not knowing every once in a while.

Edited 12 hours ago by Cred

[zurew]

10 hours ago, Cred said:

However, this conflict is not that present in me.

 Some philosophers will agree with you, because they dont buy into this divide.

So far my understanding is that its a way to try to differentiate yourself from philosophers who you consider to be bad philosophers (because you take it that they are doing bad philosophy).

I agree with you generally speaking (especially about your comment on mysticism), but I dont think that most philosophers who consider themselves as non-analytic philosophers are actually into mysticism or practice being a mystic , so I think most of the criticisms still apply to them (and that criticism largely contains the idea that they lack clarity, sometimes they are conceptually confused and their inferences are bad and or unclear and its not just that they have a hard time explicating their views, but they are sometimes reluctant to do so). 

I also take it that some mystics could actually and genuinely benefit from studying analytic philosophy, because even though they practice and do stuff, they can still get seemingly quite dogmatic about their views and they  necessarily rely on some claims that are justified by not direct experience , but by analytic and conceptual tools (even if they dont want to say it out loud and even if they dont want to admit it).

 

I also dont like most of the criticisms levied at analytic philosophers (that I consider to be low-tier) like the criticism that they make things harder by inventing new terms and by inventing new conceptual , analytic tools and frameworks and new ways of reasoning.  Just imagine for a second if the same kind of criticism would be directed at mathematicians "Dude, why the fuck do you guys jerk yourselves off with inventing new symbols and why would you guys obscure things by rules and axioms and why do you make it so hard to count and to model things, and to make sense of equations, when you could just convey everything purely using natural language that a 5 year old could just  immediately and perfectly understand?  ").

Its only when it comes to philosophy, where people have this general tendency that they dont need to learn anything new and they can just jump in and understand most stuff and can just do philosophy on their own - but they intuitively understand that none of that shit flies in any other domain (not in science and not in math, because you need to learn a fuck ton of background info and ways of thinking and conceptual tools).

 

And this is not really about learning stuff in a dogmatic way, but more about learning new tools to gain ability to think more clearly and to think deeper about things. Its cool if you can dig 1 meter deep just by using your natural hands, but its better to use tools to dig deeper, if your goal is to go much deeper and to check whats up deeper down (in my view, there isn't any virtue in with just sticking to your natural hands there and your mind is already filled with all kinds of background info and ways of thinking that you pick up from your culture and you are also born with a bunch of cognitive biases anyway and you not learning about those not gonna make them to go away).

The irony is that you need to learn some stuff about 1st principles thinking to get better at it, because people are naturally really bad at it.

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew