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!
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?
Ok a lot to discuss and think on, thank you:
Thank you for inspiring me to adapt to it.
The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao.
Yep; the allegory for motion. Consider this...if we are within motion; do we see the motion; or the consequences of motion on all existence within motion?
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.
The words we are suing here are by definition contradicting reality, because nature doesn't use them to communicate with us. That contradiction is one of the main reasons why we have such a hard time to get through to others, because they adhere to the affixed "word", while ignoring the ever changing motion that allows us to the act of setting words into motion to communicate.
What are we communicating about? Predefined information, with each of us lacking the comprehension of what all we perceive means. To disprove that...use your consciousness to come up with any NEW information that wasn't inspired by that which already is. We cannot create new; we can only transmute out of source offered (energy in motion).
They tell us that one created all, but the prerequisite for creation is information. Energy is the source of all information and it also represents the function of self sustenance, because energy creates motion, and motion creates energy.
ALL (potentiality) is inspiration for each ONE (potential) within itself to adhere to self sustenance.
you proclaim the truth of the absence of truth, what am I missing there?
You are the one believing in truth; that which is fundamentally right and opposes the "lie". I simply ask you how such a unchanging state can exist within the constant change of motion. You now perceive a contradiction; not based on reality, but based on your beliefs. Did nature offered you these beliefs, or did you consent to the assumptions offered by another ONE about what ALL means? How could a potential define the potentiality it is an individual part of?
If I offer you an assumption made up with my free will of choice, based on my own selfish intent, and you consent to it by believing it; by upholding it within your consciousness as a "truth" or "lie" while acting upon; while setting actions into motion, based on "your" beliefs, then you unknowingly act upon my ill intent.
This is called a "contract of belief" under the laws of nature, and it represents the corruption of offer/consent by free will of one to trick another one to ignore oneself. The parasite wielding this to control the majority of us, have an allegory for that...a golem; a monster out of clay; controlled from outside. And since all offers are made by the use of words (idols); they put a "spell" on us.
And guess what a belief represents to ones comprehension? A self imposed restriction; a mental stagnation; ones free will of choice adhering to ignorance over adhere to self sustenance.
How does one attain this skill of comprehension?
Stop restricting it with beliefs, and start adhering to instinctive needs (adherence) over wants (ignorance) which represents the real morality defining your responsibility over free will of choice for EACH of your actions.
You seem dismissive of quantum mechanics and einsteinian mechanics, yet fond of Newtonian mechanics or atleast his “laws”.
I try to make this one easier to understand for you...SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, "to know".]...one cannot know (comprehend) if one consents to believing the offer of other ones, because to believe represents to self restrict comprehension.
The reason they call it science (to know) is to trick us to contradict reality by consenting to know, while restricting our means to know. They do this with everything and then use our selfish ignorance as the inspiration to continue. One example...money. What is the highest value in all of existence? ONEs free will of choice to "evaluate" ALL that is. With money they offered us a substitute value for our means to evaluate all, which they of course used to devalue our existence.
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?
I don't use Newton or any other false authority as a reference point to argue from, I tap nature itself as the source for all information by adhering to it, while putting every topic presented into perceptive of the laws of nature. I comprehend the foundation, which allows me to freely undermine the substitute source to check where the deception was implemented. I already know that it must be there, because them offering me information, while playing the authority over me is already against the laws of nature.
Ones free will of choice represents ones sole authority over ones own actions.
As for alchemy...totally legit. All within the motion of energy transmute their actions out of source information. All the mass extinction events are alchemical sacrifice rituals to send the selfish masses back to base. "war"; "starvation" or "genocide" are just the idols they use to trick us to consent to a narrative that keeps them in control and us ignorant. They maintain selfishness, and harvest the unused (ignored) energy. This world is quite the spectacle once one comprehends what's going on.
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?
Within motion all that isn't "needed" to sustain oneself between inception and death, automatically represents the pull of motion towards death aka temptations. This is why everything in existence (within motion) represents a temptation that demands ones responsibility of free will of choice. And since needs and wants are in coexistence with each other, ones responsibility is not achieve either one side (life) or the other (death), but to sustain self within the temporary balance (momentum) within motion.
What is the "self" that one can sustain between life that is always running out and unavoidable death? Blood; our really identity carrier (not body or mind; they're just tools to sustain blood). And how can we sustain blood? Within the bloodline; which means we are part of a shared identity, based on collective bonds of individual adherence to self sustenance.
As for desire..."sex" which you probably believe means intercourse, but which actually means the distinction between male and female..let's apply needs and wants to the intercourse definition. What's the need (self sustenance) behind intercourse? Procreation (the creation of life), and so the want is lust (temptation luring towards death). If one doesn't choose to adhere to self sustenance by intending to procreate, then one falls for lust and that will have negative consequence.
Did I mention that motion represents the highest authority govern all within it, which is why temptations are so damn temping, and which is why sustaining life is an ongoing struggle? Btw just like truth and lies; love and hate don't exist as natural states; they are designed umbrella terms to trick us to destroy ourselves.
These provide us our goalposts in physical existence, do they not?
The "goal" of life was defined at its inception...death. Don't chase what you want; sustain what you need. The consequences of falling for a want are the inspiration needed to inspire adherence to need, and vice versa. It's all about balance.
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?
Nope; I was always anti-authoritarian to the point of misanthropy, while blaming myself until I found a nugget of inspiration within a book that pointed out that they always tech you name, dates and events, but never how all these directly relate to oneself. If others teach me about yet others, who teaches me about myself? Then I ran into the so called jews; then I found out that it wasn't me who didn't fit in; it was everyone else, and so I started to adhere to self sustenance and all the restrictions fell apart, while unity with others became a need to adhere to adhere to as well and so here I am, writing yet again a little too much...
I think I’m starting to grok some of this. Thank you so much I hope you continue to inspire
I think I’m starting to grok some of this
It took me nearly a decade to allow myself to question the laws of nature without the religious connotations, so yeah...don't get discouraged by your own inability to question your own beliefs. The last thing the selfish wants is to question self.