Existence...

“The cohesion of multiplicity is the singularity, existence” is a word game?

With that, good night.

But with desperate degenerates it's far worse than the "photo of a mountain" metaphor because they don't even have a photo in the pocket, or in their hands but only in their minds.
The idea of their minds they can name, they can draw, they can even define and describe it, but they cannot show it, only the copy, only the abstraction exists.

WendyDarling wrote:

“The cohesion of multiplicity is the singularity, existence” is a word game?

With that, good night.

The "cohesion" represented by the word if taken literally and not as a representation, is a mind game, externalized as word games.

If the ideas are taken literally then anything and everything can exist.
The criterion is no longer empirical but emotional. If it feels good it is true. If it comforts or tickles vanity, or gratifies, it exists.

Like the moron on ILP who implied that because ideas exist in the mind, and the mind is natural and it exists - a product of nature - then all ideas are natural and exist.
So unicorns, leprechauns, zombies, one-god, ghosts, dragons, square circles, frozen flames, whatever, like homosexuality, paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality are all natural, they exist, in that they are the product of natural selection, or natural processes, and they exists in human minds producing behaviours that contradict natural processes, ergo nothing is freakish or corruptive or wrong.
All is in nature it exists as idea, and is normal.
Mind games using words to exploit and manipulate - feminine methods.

There's no such thing as nothingness, just as there is no such thing as thing, a some-thing.
These are words attempting to represent a state of being and then of non-being.

Nothing was created from nothing.
The ancients conceptualized this state preceding our experienced existence as a void...which wasn't really empty.
They could not conceptualize near-absoltue chaos, so they did it by imagining what they've experienced as void, absence, dark, meaningless...by taking the experienced and inverting it in their minds.
There is no non-existence, so there is nothing other than existence.
We can describe it from within and conceptualize it by imagining ourselves outside of it...as a one, a thing, which refer to our mental representations.

We experience no no-thing state as we never experience a some-thing, we only experience a dynamic process state of change of fluctuations, of processes, i.e., fluidity, flux etc.
words and symbols, like "one" are tools meant to identify particular experiences, specific patterns (energies) nd are meaningless outside this utility. There is no one or nil independent from mind.
The mind is the only place this one and il exist...like Unicorns, Zombies...like god, like geometric shapes...etc.

Are these concepts useful, do they serve a purpose?
Yes.
But taking them literally is where the mind goes off into madness.

Satyr wrote:

In the mind.
We can conceptualize anything as a singularity.
One grain of sand on one mound of sand.
One stone on one mountain on one continent on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in one universe.
All ones.

One is an idea.
One/Nil is a binary.
The mind makes anything into a singularity, but an actual singularity has never been discovered.
Closest they've come is a Black Hole.
Even the Big Bang cannot be considered a singularity. We can only imagine it as a duality - Yin/Yang, Near absolute, as I call it.
If absolute rode or disorder were finalized there would be no existence - a singularity is the negation of existence.
A singularity is the end of existence. If one were to suddenly pop out of nowhere it would end existence - suck all into it.

Existence = dynamic, Interactive. A singularity cannot be interactive. What would absolute one interact with?
This is why I say that anyone who believes in singularities or absolutes is a nihilist.
Example: the concept of an absolute one-god is the negation of existence.
A singularity, an absolute is a contradiction to the very experience of the existent.
We experience existence as an interactive, dynamic multiplicity, which the idea of a singularity contradicts.
we can imagine a dynamic interactive singularity, but we can also imagine a square circle, hot ice, frozen fire....or anything, because the mind, its thoughts are not bound by the laws of physics.
So in the mind we can imagine a unicorn, or a one-god, or  even self-cotnradictory ideas conceptualized as a unity...
The mind can exist in past, future or beyond space time, in tis imaginings.
It can conceptualize anything, because its concepts are neural energies which exist but can represent what does not exist, or that can never exist.

This is why the mind is made into the source of divinity and why nihilists are obsessed with subjectivity - keeping all evidence and arguments in the mind - as ideas, theories.
All is a social construct if we keep everything theoretical and we refuse to bring it down to earth and connect it to what is experienced, what is perceived.
All magic is of the mind. Magical spells, incantations, vocal conjuring...all of the mind.
Astrology is in the mind, affecting body.
Using words or symbols to influence minds is what "magic" is about: linguistic, semiotic, manipulation of need/desire, mind to mind.
All the supernatural is of the mind.
All superstitions refer to mental constructs, metal prejudices, anxieties.

Would the mind of a singularity be bound by physics?

Satyr wrote:

WendyDarling wrote:

Is a pregnant mother a multiplicity?  I can see her as a singularity housing a multiplicity.

Dear girl, this implies an "outside".
What is "outside existence"? Non-Existence.
There is no outside for there to be an enclosure, a whole...
From inside there is only multiplicity. From within existence only multiplicity.

Do you understand?
That which is "outside existence" does not exist, by definition.
But the only way to perceive the multiplicity of existence as a singular whole, you imagine yourself there.

This is what the concept of a uni-verse is.

I agree with everything but the last sentence due to it not being expansive enough since it only tends to describe space.

WendyDarling wrote:

Would the mind of a singularity be bound by physics?  

Well, good morning...up early.
I know we're in the same time zone.

Physics = human laws.
Patterns underlying patterns which man has discovered/observed and encoded.

Would superman be bound by physics?

So many assumptions - first a singularity, then a singularity with a mind....might as well discuss zombies.
Have you ever experienced mind outside an organic form?

Define mind, for me.
My definition:
Mind = synthesis of genetic and experiential memories and sensual stimulations (interactions) within a brain.

WendyDarling wrote:

I agree with everything but the last sentence due to it not being expansive enough since it only tends to describe space.

I prefer the Greek term to the Latin one, so Kosmos/Cosmos...just as I prefer aletheia rather than veritas, from where we get 'truth'.

Uni-verse....the term itself implies one and logos.

Nevertheless...I go by Heidegger.
Space = possibility
Matter/Energy, order = probability
Time = momentum, movement, change, relative to organic metabolic rhythms.

Satyr wrote:

WendyDarling wrote:

I agree with everything but the last sentence due to it not being expansive enough since it only tends to describe space.

I prefer the Greek term o the Latin one, so Kosmos/Cosmos...just as I prefer Aletheia rather than veritas, from where we get 'truth'.

Uni-verse....the term itself implies one and logos.

Nevertheless...I go by Heidegger.
Space = possibility
Matter/Energy, order = probability
Time = momentum, movement, change, relative to organic metabolic rhythms.  

So your understanding of reality makes it less real to you?

What?
Reality = constantly reaffirmed interactivity experienced via perceived patterns/energies interacting with body and sense organs.
Experience is approximation, evaluation of probabilities in an expanding field of possibilities.

Not less "real", less certain.

Satyr wrote:

What?
Reality = constantly reaffirmed interactivity experienced via perceived patterns/energies interacting with body and sense organs.
Experience is approximation, evaluation of probabilities in an expanding field of possibilities.

Not less "real", less certain.

Let me ask it this way, can you prove that experience is outside of your mind? We’re approaching tricky(no offense meant)areas here where what I call “logic collides.”

1-Consequences...
If it were only in my mind the consequences would be reversible, avoidable.

2-Constant affirmation.
I constantly test my views in relation to an independent standard - an indifferent world.

3-Third Party affirmation.
Empiricism.

Not to disappoint, but I am on a phone and it is not functional enough to do any serious work. If I were God, I would have done better.

If I am not too boring, can we continue this later?

Starting a topic “where logic collides” is on my list of to-dos but not from a phone.

I am in the mood to be social so I’ll go talk to myself in another thread.

The brain in a vat, crap...Mental masturbation extrordinaire...
If it is all "in my head" then I can make you do anything, since you are in my head as well.
But this forum is a social forum now...so fuck it.
I'll play along as long as I can endure the exploration of "what ifs".

I start with "what is" perceived sensually and constantly validated by others.
You want to speculate...
What if we are all figment in god's imagination?
What if there is a god?
What if we could upload our consciousness into a computer?

Funny how these questions usually vanish the second a predator charges at someone.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Funny how these questions usually vanish the second a predator charges at someone.

Yeah, there ain't no skepticism then. There ain't no question about illusory existence, no doubting our senses then.
No brain in the vat, then.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Funny how these questions usually vanish the second a predator charges at someone.

Who's the predator?

Satyr wrote:

In the mind.
We can conceptualize anything as a singularity.
One grain of sand on one mound of sand.
One stone on one mountain on one continent on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in one universe.
All ones.

One is an idea.
One/Nil is a binary.
The mind makes anything into a singularity, but an actual singularity has never been discovered.
Closest they've come is a Black Hole.
Even the Big Bang cannot be considered a singularity. We can only imagine it as a duality - Yin/Yang, Near absolute, as I call it.
If absolute rode or disorder were finalized there would be no existence - a singularity is the negation of existence.
A singularity is the end of existence. If one were to suddenly pop out of nowhere it would end existence - suck all into it.

Existence = dynamic, Interactive. A singularity cannot be interactive. What would absolute one interact with?
This is why I say that anyone who believes in singularities or absolutes is a nihilist.
Example: the concept of an absolute one-god is the negation of existence.
A singularity, an absolute is a contradiction to the very experience of the existent.
We experience existence as an interactive, dynamic multiplicity, which the idea of a singularity contradicts.
we can imagine a dynamic interactive singularity, but we can also imagine a square circle, hot ice, frozen fire....or anything, because the mind, its thoughts are not bound by the laws of physics.
So in the mind we can imagine a unicorn, or a one-god, or  even self-cotnradictory ideas conceptualized as a unity...
The mind can exist in past, future or beyond space time, in tis imaginings.
It can conceptualize anything, because its concepts are neural energies which exist but can represent what does not exist, or that can never exist.

This is why the mind is made into the source of divinity and why nihilists are obsessed with subjectivity - keeping all evidence and arguments in the mind - as ideas, theories.
All is a social construct if we keep everything theoretical and we refuse to bring it down to earth and connect it to what is experienced, what is perceived.
All magic is of the mind. Magical spells, incantations, vocal conjuring...all of the mind.
Astrology is in the mind, affecting body.
Using words or symbols to influence minds is what "magic" is about: linguistic, semiotic, manipulation of need/desire, mind to mind.
All the supernatural is of the mind.
All superstitions refer to mental constructs, metal prejudices, anxieties.

Nil exists?

WendyDarling wrote:

Nil exists?

Exactly in the way "one" exists.

Satyr wrote:

WendyDarling wrote:

Nil exists?

Exactly in the way "one" exists.

Mind if I circle back?

A pattern cannot interact with a pattern? A pattern cannot exist inside another pattern?

Yes it can.
Pattern - repeating consistent sequence....there can be a pattern as part of this pattern.

567345123567345

567345123567345

When I speak of a pattern I mean energy with a specific repeating, consistent sequence of probable interactivity in multi-dimesional space/time.
Matter interacts with matter.
Matter is energy - slower than the human metabolic rhythms - which is interpreted as a kind, a type, of matter.

Satyr wrote:

When I speak of a pattern I mean energy with a specific repeating, consistent sequence of probable interactivity in multi-dimesional space/time.
Matter interacts with matter.
Matter is energy - slower than the human metabolic rhythms - which is interpreted as a kind, a type, of matter.  

There are multiple dimensions?

Aside from all your sweet assumptions about me, I am enjoying our interaction. Am I torturing you properly?

Theoretical physicists say there are over 10.



In my metaphysics expanding space/time includes dimensional fragmentation, but we can only experience it in four dimensional space/time as expansion.
The cosmos is expanding in all dimensions.

So, if space = possibility then the cosmos is moving towards near absolute chaos, which means a state where everything is possible - near infinite possibilities - but increasingly improbability - diminishment of patterns will be experienced as the gradual darkening, absence of matter/energy.
Energy will become uniform - or it will tend towards absolute uniformity - chaos - with no repeating consistency, i.e., no matter or energies which we can perceive.
In my view such a state would produce, randomly, a near-absoltue singularity - but such a singularity will never be complete - never absolute - so it will start the process again - Big Bang.

Near absolute singularity implies a duality - Yin/Yang, Order/Chaos.
In this state of near absolute chaos, near-absoltue order will emerge.
The presence of chaos will make it unstable, beginning the process of expansion/inflation.
If not for this chaos there would be no existence - the singularity would be finalized and all would implode into a static infinitely massive point - the end. Such a point would be absolute certainty - no more possibilities or probabilities, no more dynamic interactive space/time.
Conversely, if not for this component of order to react against the completion of absolute chaos, the cosmos would settle into a uniform void of infinite possibilities but no probabilities.

Satyr wrote:

Theoretical physicists say there are over 10.

In my metaphysics expanding space/time includes dimensional fragmentation, but we can only experience it in four dimensional space/time as expansion.
The cosmos is expanding in all dimensions.

So, if space = possibility then the cosmos is moving towards near absolute chaos, which means a state where everything is possible - near infinite possibilities - but increasingly improbability - diminishment of patterns will be experienced as the gradual darkening, absence of matter/energy.
Energy will become uniform - or it will tend towards absolute uniformity - chaos - with no repeating consistency, i.e., no matter or energies which we can perceive.
In my view such a state would produce, randomly, a near-absoltue singularity - but such a singularity will never be complete - never absolute - so it will start the process again - Big Bang.

Near absolute singularity implies a duality - Yin/Yang, Order/Chaos.
In this state of near absolute chaos, near-absoltue order will emerge.
The presence of chaos will make it unstable, beginning the process of expansion/inflation.
If not for this chaos there would be no existence - the singularity would be finalized and all would implode into a static infinitely massive point - the end. Such a point would be absolute certainty - no more possibilities or probabilities, no more dynamic interactive space/time.
Conversely, if not for this component of order to react against the completion of absolute chaos, the cosmos would settle into a uniform void of infinite possibilities but no probabilities.

Is chaos a pattern?

Have you been reading my posts, dear?
Order = pattern - consistent, repeating, sequence.
Chaos = no-pattern - random, inconsistent, non-repeating.

Satyr wrote:

Have you been reading my posts, dear?
Order = pattern - consistent, repeating, sequence.
Chaos = no-pattern - random, inconsistent, non-repeating.

So what you are saying is that at least one pattern of order always exists?

Yes.

Satyr wrote:

Yes.

Brevity I can appreciate.

Chaos is "other" than a wave/pattern? Know nothing about the concepts of chaos and order.