This post might end up a bit of a jumbled mess but I just wanted to get a first draft of my thoughts out there and hopefully spark a discussion.
The Game of Life through Math
Mathematician John Conway constructed a model of the universe that not only could simulate all of existence, but also simulate a computer simulating all of existence. It can simulate a single quark gluon or atom, or an entire multiverse. As above, so below
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
The Game of Life, also known simply as Life, is a cellular automaton devised by the British mathematician John Horton Conway in 1970.[1] It is a zero-player game, meaning that its evolution is determined by its initial state, requiring no further input. One interacts with the Game of Life by creating an initial configuration and observing how it evolves. It is Turing complete and can simulate a universal constructor or any other Turing machine.
The Game of Life through Physical Reality and the Feedback Mechanism
Douglas Hofstadter wrote two amazing books which he says “ are a very personal attempt to say how it is that animate beings can come out of inanimate matter. What is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle?"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hofstadter
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop
The way he answers this question is nothing short of revelatory. I would be unable to do it justice in anything less than directly transcribing those two books, but alas word limits and human imperfection limit me to just stealing more from Wikipedia:
the book discusses how, through self-reference and formal rules, systems can acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself. What may seem like the random motion of senseless chemicals in space, with enough distance and perspective may resemble the chemical exchange of our synapses, a fungal network, or the structure of the universe itself. As above, so below.
The Game of Life through “Fiction”
Now I know people here can have harsh opinions on modern fiction and the transition from narrative to propaganda. However, what I see as one of the most important abilities for a human to have is the ability to see the truth in fiction. Joseph Campbell (expanding on the works of Jung mainly) best described this process through the language of symbolism and archetype. The same patterns and plays that dominate our subconscious dominate our waking reality or at least our interpretations there of. As above, so below.
Short 1 https://www.ishtar-collective.net/categories/book-unveiling
These are the rules of a game. Let it be played upon an infinite two-dimensional grid of flowers.
Rule One. A living flower with less than two living neighbors is cut off. It dies.
Rule Two. A living flower with two or three living neighbors is connected. It lives.
Rule Three. A living flower with more than three living neighbors is starved and overcrowded. It dies.
Rule Four. A dead flower with exactly three living neighbors is reborn. It springs back to life.
The only play permitted in the game is the arrangement of the initial flowers.
This game fascinates kings. This game occupies the very emperors of thought. Though it has only four rules, and the board is a flat featureless grid, in it you will find changeless blocks, stoic as iron, and beacons and whirling pulsars, as well as gliders that soar out to infinity, and patterns that lay eggs and spawn other patterns, and living cells that replicate themselves wholly. In it, you may construct a universal computer with the power to simulate, very slowly, any other computer imaginable and thus simulate whole realities, including nested copies of the flower game itself. And the game is undecidable. No one can predict exactly how the game will play out except by playing it.
And yet this game is nothing compared to the game played by the gardener and the winnower. It resembles that game as a seed does a flower—no, as a seed resembles the star that fed the flower and all the life that made it.
In their game, the gardener and the winnower discovered shapes of possibility. They foresaw bodies and civilizations, minds and cognitions, qualia and suffering. They learned the rules that governed which patterns would flourish in the game, and which would dwindle.
They learned those rules, because they were those rules.
And in time the gardener became vexed.
Short 2 https://www.ishtar-collective.net/cards/ghost-fragment-darkness-3
From the Journals of Toland, the Shattered
I drive myself to the edge of madness trying to explain the truth.
It's so simple. Elegant like a knife point. It explains - this is not hyperbole, this is the farthest thing from exaggeration - EVERYTHING.
But you lay it out and they stare at you like you've just been exhaling dust. Maybe they're missing some underlying scaffold of truth. Maybe they are all propped on a bed of lies that must be burned away.
Why does anything exist?
No no no no no don't reach for that word. There's no 'reason'. That's teleology and teleology will stitch your eyelids shut.
Why do we have atoms? Because atomic matter is more stable than the primordial broth. Atoms defeated the broth. That was the first war. There were two ways to be and one of them won. And everything that came next was made of atoms.
Atoms made stars. Stars made galaxies. Worlds simmered down to rock and acid and in those smoking primal seas the first living molecule learned to copy itself. All of this happened by the one law, the blind law, which exists without mind or meaning. It's the simplest law but it has no worshippers here (out there, though, out there - !)
HOW DO I EXPLAIN IT it's so simple WHY DON'T YOU SEE
Imagine three great nations under three great queens. The first queen writes a great book of law and her rule is just. The second queen builds a high tower and her people climb it to see the stars. The third queen raises an army and conquers everything.
The future belongs to one of these queens. Her rule is harshest and her people are unhappy. But she rules.
This explains everything, understand? This is why the universe is the way it is, and not some other way. Existence is a game that everything plays, and some strategies are winners: the ability to exist, to shape existence, to remake it so that your descendants - molecules or stars or people or ideas - will flourish, and others will find no ground to grow.
And as the universe ticks on towards the close, the great players will face each other. In the next round there will be three queens and all of them will have armies, and now it will be a battle of swords - until one discovers the cannon, or the plague, or the killing word.
Everything is becoming more ruthless and in the end only the most ruthless will remain (LOOK UP AT THE SKY) and they will hunt the territories of the night and extinguish the first glint of competition before it can even understand what it faces or why it has transgressed. This is the shape of victory: to rule the universe so absolutely that nothing will ever exist except by your consent. This is the queen at the end of time, whose sovereignty is eternal because no other sovereign can defeat it. And there is no reason for it, no more than there was reason for the victory of the atom. It is simply the winning play.
Of course, it might be that there was another country, with other queens, and in this country they sat down together and made one law and one tower and one army to guard their borders. This is the dream of small minds: a gentle place ringed in spears.
But I do not think those spears will hold against the queen of the country of armies. And that is all that will matter in the end.
This post could be 10000x longer with more detail and links, but like I mentioned above I’d just like to get the ball rolling on some discussions!
Well according to quantum mechanical interpretations of reality an object’s motion (momentum) and its location are simultaneously (un)knowable, so I’m not sure what the answer here is, even if I give you the rest of your axioms and elaborations
Edit: no offense or attempt to reduce meant, but it almost feels to me like you just took the word “energy” in physics and replace it with “motion” but I’m just not sure what all that means or encompasses, thanks for taking the time to discuss in many of my threads I really appreciate it!
according to
That's the problem. Consenting to the false authority of others, while ignoring the sole authority over self. How can one comprehend all, if one uses his free will of choice to consent to another one acting "in the name of" (In Nomine) all?
(un)knowable
How can all be information offered to the perception of the ones within, yet be unknowable?
I’m not sure what the answer here is
The only thing within a system based on motion that cannot change; are the rules the define how motion operates. These rules are called the laws of nature, and we can only mentally comprehend them, while physically perceive the consequences of actions set into motion showing us the information as inspiration for creation towards adherence to self sustenance.
You are alive, which is physical proof within motion. Your life proves your inception and your death being set into motion, but you cannot physically proof that, only mentally comprehend it. This represents the balance between the body and the mind within motion.
Now try to figure out how motion operates and how all lifeforms can "instinctively" adhere to them?
You assert this, and I admit it feels logically consistent and, on some level atleast, true. However I’m not convinced it is an omnipresent truth, it could totally just be a truth fundamental to our level of perception. Like I’ve raised before, the cutting edge of science seems to fly in the face of your claims. What do you make of the research that indicates our “minds are made up” long before we ever consciously settle on a potential action in response to a choice?
My deepest desire is to understand the answer to these questions. But any explanation that leaves questions can’t be the explanation, right?
I admit it feels logically consistent and, on some level at least, true
It isn't. If you would really comprehended motion (constant change) then the definition of "truth" you "believe" in would be a contradiction to motion. How can it be true if it's constantly changing? Wouldn't that make the truth a lie? Within motion one can only assume: hence the need for constant adaptation, while upholding any belief represents mental stagnation.
I’m not convinced it is an omnipresent truth, it could totally just be a truth fundamental to our level of perception
Again you think in truth vs false, but there's no conflict within motion; only the coexistence of opposites defined by each other. Motion defines your life as being in-between inception and death, yet you can never perceive these two for yourself; only fully comprehend that they are, because you are. Meanwhile you can perceive these existential barriers on all other existence (well all that which has a shorter life-cycle than your own that is).
Perception represents consequences of actions set INTO motion; comprehension of the consequences of actions allows one to understand origin and outcome, and together one can comprehend the means of operation.
the cutting edge of science seems to fly in the face of your claims
Yet, they demand you to consent with your free will of choice to their offers by believing them. Interesting how others can define reality if one consents to what they offer...how is it that they never address the power you wield (free will of choice) that is the basis of all their offers.
Could it be that the offers they made with their own free will of choice are based on the intent to get you to consent to ignore your own? How do you think a few managed to gain control over the many? They call themselves the 1%, which alleges a 99% control over others, so...how do they sustain those odds?
What do you make of the research that indicates our “minds are made up” long before we ever consciously settle on a potential action in response to a choice?
From the perspective of the few it's always the same modus operandi...get them to consent to ignore reality in favor of fiction. As for the premise...consciousness starts with perception; with information received; which represents the needed communication between ALL (potentiality) and each individual ONE (potential) within.
The fundamental information that all the ONEs within motion collectively perceive is the instinctive demand to uphold life over death; our command line of operations; the shared survival instinct. That demand comes before choice and comprehension and represents authority over mind.
To test this quickly; use your mind to choose to hold your breath until you die, to learn that neither your mind nor your body is in control...the survival instinct is, which represents adherence to self sustenance. It requires severe corruption (wants) by your choices to overrule your instincts (needs).
Furthermore; SPIR'IT, noun (Latin spiritus, from spiro) - to breathe. Our breathing represents our spirit contract as ONE within ALL to adhere to uphold life over death; to which we consent with each breath we take. Which brings me to a more recent (((presentation))) that taught us that "I can't breath" leads to death; followed by the offer to "put a mask over your nose and mouth". So once again they used an offer to get the majority of mankind to consent symbolically to death over life.
You assert this
Language doesn't allow me to prevent you from not perceiving it as a proclamation, because language is corruption of communication that represents a substitute offer for information. Consider that nature (energy in motion) communicates all information to all existence without branding anything (no words). Why? Because motion means change, and so every branded "truth" would be changed into a "lie", and nature doesn't lie.
We only have the inner monologue because of language. We mentally contemplating fictitious assumptions, while ignoring motion. Those who control us know this, because they put a "spell" on us, when they offer us words to consent to (by upholding them as beliefs; by idolizing fiction). When we consent by free will of choice to their fictitious offer, then they gain the power to act "in the name of" the idol (word) we believe in, which allows them to change the definition of our perceive reality (which is all fiction, because we ignore the source of information for a substitute offer).
My deepest desire is to understand the answer to these questions.
Desire represents a "want"; a temptation luring towards death; while comprehension is gained by adherence to need; to self sustenance. I ask questions to get you to attempt to comprehend for yourself; instead of believing me, which would help neither of us.
But any explanation that leaves questions can’t be the explanation, right?
Nature "explains" itself by inspiring us through the consequences of actions set into motion, and since you represent a temporary ONE within ALL, you will never run out of information to question, because that would require the unity of all individual potential, at which point motion wouldn't exist, because motion segregates potentiality into individual potential.
ONE cannot "unlock" the information of ALL; ONE needs to sustain self within ALL to gain access to infinite potentiality.
Ok a lot to discuss and think on, thank you:
The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao.
I feel like a lot of your communications are seemingly contradictory, but also that pointing out the “contradictions that aren’t” of reality is part of your point. To reduce it, you proclaim the truth of the absence of truth, what am I missing there?
How does one attain this skill of comprehension? You seem dismissive of quantum mechanics and einsteinian mechanics, yet fond of Newtonian mechanics or atleast his “laws”. I notice you have picked up on the degenerative, subversive element of civilization, why does this subversion not extend back to Newton and his alchemical, to put it broadly, beliefs and doctrines?
And lastly to your points on desire and wants as corruptions of sustaining truth, how does one live and love without a vague sense of wants and desires? These provide us our goalposts in physical existence, do they not? When you were younger you desired to learn more and not be content with what was provided, so much so you devised a theory of existence to fill the gap you desired filled, right?