New: Axioms of Metaphysics

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rendered

Registered Member
1.] The mind exists at individual points in metric space but shares a single point in sub-space. This would explain why non local mind can exist.

2.] The human brain resonates between material and immaterial levels of reality. Reality has its own frequency because it IS energy.

3.] The world and the body appear within consciousness, rather that the other way around.

4.] The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

5.] When man is unprotected he will become prey to a type of logic that resides in reality(the thing we incorrectly believe can only be perceived and not mind connection that fills our flesh and blood bodies as well as everything else and thus results in non-separation and hence limitlessness).

6.] Self and non-self or God and non-God merge to become the one that distributes over the one.

7.] I am as sure of this as the shortest distance between A and B must be a straight line.

8.] Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themselves as a separate and distinct lifeform.

9.] Mind = Reality = Language. Reality enters the mind in the form of language or information.

10.] Reality is self-perceptual. Reality observes itself.

11.] Death is an illusion of change. Whereas objects exist within time and space, reality does not.
 
James,

I am hoping this gains your approval. Whaddya say, is there room on your forums for the "great genius"? I guarantee I will follow the rules this time.
 
James,

I just want to say I am grateful for this opportunity despite the ignorance of some naysayers who do not see reality as clearly as others.

That said, I would like to incorporate a recent subject - Quantum Biology - into my axiomatic proof of a metaphysical reality. Note: Reality can only be discussed by a tiny fraction of the population capable of thinking on the highest level. As it is the highest, most general subject possible. Think of two lines converging on a point. That point is without doubt... reality. I would invite anyone else to discuss this subject at their own whim.

You will come to find that I am a wonderful addition to these forums if you decide to have me.

I'm surprised Exchemist is oblivious to the fact that my intelligence has inexplicably risen! That just goes to show where his priorities lie.

Now, onto Quantum Biology.

All valid supernatural experiences are better known in mainstream science as explained by Quantum Biology. Where our Biological processes and their associated quantum effects are due to atoms and molecules jostling around within our bodies.

It's quite a fascinating subject.
 
Last edited:
Proof of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis:

Existence can be placed on paper in the form of mathematics. Where content of one kind translates to content of a different kind.
 
Still waiting for those axioms.
All you've given so far is drivel.
 
Rendered said:
New: Axioms of Metaphysics
Click to expand...

An axiom is -- A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

So my first question is why should we accept this set of rather doubtful propositions as axioms? Do you really want to argue that they are self evident? (They aren't)

Or do you propose to assume them hypothetically and then try to produce an argument that if we accept these particular premises as true, then we will need to accept whatever you think they imply as true as well? In which case, not only do you need to produce the argument connecting your axioms to whatever you want to conclude, the 'why should we accept these premises as true' question still stares us in the face as well. Otherwise all we will have is a doubtful conclusion based on doubtful premises.

Perhaps where you need to start is by explaining what you think each of these supposedly axiomatic propositions means (it isn't obvious) and why any of us should accept any of them as true. And tell us what you propose to do with them.
 
Last edited:
$$
Rendered said:
1.] The mind exists at individual points in metric space but shares a single point in sub-space. This would explain why non local mind can exist.

2.] The human brain resonates between material and immaterial levels of reality. Reality has its own frequency because it IS energy.

3.] The world and the body appear within consciousness, rather that the other way around.

4.] The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

5.] When man is unprotected he will become prey to a type of logic that resides in reality(the thing we incorrectly believe can only be perceived and not mind connection that fills our flesh and blood bodies as well as everything else and thus results in non-separation and hence limitlessness).

6.] Self and non-self or God and non-God merge to become the one that distributes over the one.

7.] I am as sure of this as the shortest distance between A and B must be a straight line.

8.] Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themselves as a separate and distinct lifeform.

9.] Mind = Reality = Language. Reality enters the mind in the form of language or information.

10.] Reality is self-perceptual. Reality observes itself.

11.] Death is an illusion of change. Whereas objects exist within time and space, reality does not.
Click to expand...

$$
This reads like nonsense
 
Yazata said:
An axiom is -- A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
Click to expand...
Each and every one of the axioms make logical sense. They are the very finest metaphysics has to offer. Your doubt is without merit.
Yazata said:
So my first question is why should we accept this set of rather doubtful propositions as axioms? Do you really want to argue that they are self evident? (They aren't)
Click to expand...
You can at least pretend to show a shred of open mindedness in your response. Each of them has a degree of logic, some moreso than others. To dismiss them demonstrates your own bias.
Yazata said:
Or do you propose to assume them hypothetically and then try to produce an argument that if we accept these particular premises as true, then we will need to accept whatever you think they imply as true as well?
Click to expand...
At the very least they cannot be disproven. Hence they are introduced as a possibility (at the very least).

Yazata said:
In which case, not only do you need to produce the argument connecting your axioms to whatever you want to conclude, the 'why should we accept these premises as true' question still stares us in the face as well. Otherwise all we will have is a doubtful conclusion based on doubtful premises.
Click to expand...
Re-read them carefully. You will see that they are arguing in favor of non-separation, where some of these relate to each other. They are logically connected to a metaphysical reality, however, you are limited by the fact that you cannot experience them empirically. Other than that the axioms are sound.
Yazata said:
Perhaps where you need to start is by explaining what you think each of these supposedly axiomatic propositions means (it isn't obvious) and why any of us should accept any of them as true. And tell us what you propose to do with them.
Click to expand...
Your reasoning is limited by the fact that you cannot experience the metaphysical reality that I can. However, to even a casual observer who keeps an open mind, they can be seen as logical possibilities.

These axioms are THEORETICAL. That is their only limitation.
 
Last edited:
Rendered said:
Each and every one of the axioms make logical sense. They are the very finest metaphysics has to offer. Your doubt is without merit.
Click to expand...

What does "makes logical sense" have to do with a series of assertions? Logic is the implicative relation (deductive, inductive, probabilistic perhaps) between premises and conclusion. Are you saying that you deduced these assertions from something else?
Rendered said:
You can at least pretend to show a shred of open mindedness in your response. Each of them has a degree of logic, some moreso than others. To dismiss them demonstrates your own bias.
Click to expand...

I think that you are misusing the word 'logic' again. And 'open mindedness' doesn't mean that I have to believe everything you say. You need to convince me first.

Rendered said:
At the very least they cannot be disproven. Hence they are introduced as a possibility (at the very least).
Click to expand...

They can't be proven either, right? I'm not convinced that all of them are even meaningful. But ok, let's accept them as possibilities. Then what?

Rendered said:
Re-read them carefully. You will see that they are arguing in favor of non-separation, where some of these relate to each other.
Click to expand...

They aren't arguing at all, it's just a list of assertions. You still need to construct an argument out of them, if that's your intention.

Rendered said:
They are logically connected to a metaphysical reality, however, you are limited by the fact that you cannot experience them empirically. Other than that the axioms are sound.

Your reasoning is limited by the fact that you cannot experience the metaphysical reality that I can. However, to even a casual observer who keeps an open mind, they can be seen as logical possibilities.

These axioms are THEORETICAL. That is their only limitation.
Click to expand...

That's starting to sound bizarre.

Look, if your assertions are based on some kind of experience available only to you, whether mystical, psychiatric or drug-induced, it might indeed be totally convincing... to you alone. So what do you want from the rest of us? For us to accept you as our prophet?
 
Last edited:
Rendered said:
I can see why you are not exactly sciforums' most favorite member. You have a rather high opinion of yourself I see.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can see that established science and Mathematics must be an irritation to you. It does not support your bunch of nonsensical claims.
What you posted was nonsense and should be in the pseudoscience section at the very least.
Philosophy has its roots in science, logic and mathematics.
Your post is not any of that and is just crap you have made up.
 
Rendered said:
I can see why you are not exactly sciforums' most favorite member. You have a rather high opinion of yourself I see.
Click to expand...
Rather than addressing Pinball's response, you try to divert by impugning him.
Pinball1970 said:
In that case you are not sure. Hyperbolic space is curved and the distance between points are not straight lines.
Click to expand...
He is correct. The shortest distance between two points follows a geodesic. That is, by the way, a lot more useful and intriguing tidbit of information to discuss than the cliche you've listed as one of your 'axioms'.

The rest of the list is even less sensical - mostly word salad.

Can you do me a solid? Can you put me on Ignore? Thanks, that'd be awesome.
 
Moderator note: Rendered has been permanently banned, as a sock puppet of a permanently banned user.

(For some reason, some people are very slow to recognise what "permanent" means in the term "permanent ban". You have to try fairly hard to get yourself permanently banned around here, but once you've achieved that goal, you're pretty much done. And there's zero hope of ever coming back for any length of time by creating a sock puppet.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top