For EoD, Define: Existence

[Eodnhoj7]

This is assumed.

By you.

Not really, I am just saying your premises are assumed and as such are empty...how can saying void is idol worship when void is void of idols? Enmity is not idol worship...it is a negation property and I am negating CKIIT .

By you.

Enmity is not a negation property: it is the opposite of one. If/when it exists, it has gravity associated with it. It is a component of any/all human suffering, thus to say it is "void" is to say human suffering is void.

No, Tesla wrote it. But in light of his last post saying it is irrelevant...now I can annihilate your theory...which is a theory hence a belief...you take yourself too seriously and obviously wanted to push your topic on top of Tesla .

Hell, I told you just to make a thread...

I offered to make a thread: you did not respond to sharing common cause.

A theory is not a 'belief' - it must have a bed of evidence or it is a hypothesis.

Not really, I argue 0d space, assumption, form as 1d+ space, etc.

It's theoretical nonsense.

Really? So I already claimed my stance is put up in multiple threads and you claimed to know me? Wow...judgy judgy....you are the enmity you project.

Think mirror.

You sure do use that word alot...what does it even mean to you? You wants criticism...and when is was given you call it enmity....tsk, tsk.

I use it no more than you use "void". It is a conflation of self/other wherein the iniquity of the self is taken to be the other. It can only exist when there is a sense of self/other dichotomy, hence my no longer engaging once I see it.

Falsification of the theorem, not "criticisms". There has been no real falsification because there is only desire to undermine viz. ad hominem.

Uh...no you wanted criticism to make it stronger...you just got in over your head .

It is stronger now.

And what is that...last time I looked proof is subjective.

That's because it gives you psychological comfort.

...I never said it did not quantify reality...I said "in quantifying reality it makes it subject to fallacies within counting".

Who is being dishonest now? Hashtag#:)

You are. You're trying to scapegoat onto me, because that is a/the characteristic of enmity. It's fixed.

I said it doesn't quantify reality in response to your own "in quantifying reality..."

Really, because I argue all phenomenon existing through loops and you seem to be in a regressive one trying to avoid the fact your system is full of contradictions.

Wow are real life fortune teller...this is so exciting!

It is more projection/scapegoating.

All phenomenon does not exist through loops, and the regress is one of assumption on your part. I was going to do a thread how this regress of assumption is itself regressive in its own assumption viz. an absurdity, but cleared it thinking it would have been too disrespectful, and stand by it.

Tried to play nice? Look at this forum...there is nothing nice about it. And even if you played nice...no-one would care.

It had nothing to do with the forum, or anyone else. I am not so fixed on others or caring for how they perceive me. I'd rather them try to falsify ckiit with altruistic means to falsify it, but a person who is fixed ad hominem can not fix on anything else, hence above.

I read the first 2 to 3 sentences, maybe 4...I didn't really count. I didn't really count because now you are nitpicking everything out of desperation.


I don't care about your enmity or friendship, your argument is a straw dog to me....I mean it really is a but of linear arguments woven together.

You claimed the importance of "acknowledgement", and looking up the definition of "acknowledgement" we get "acceptance". "Acceptance" is defined as "receiving".

Simple scroll through merriam Webster or multiple dictionaries shows this causal chain:

(A-->Ac-->R)

And "assumption" according to merriam Webster (def. 7)?

"Recieving".

So both "Acknowledgement" and "assumption" are connected together through "reception".


You are basically stating the importance of "recieving" in order to give validity to your argument, when in reality it not only is just a tautology of "assumption" but you are not being "recieved".

[nothing]

I read the first 2 to 3 sentences, maybe 4...I didn't really count. I didn't really count because now you are nitpicking everything out of desperation.

Define 'acknowledge' and take the inverse (ie. absence of) for 'ignorance'.

You are nitpicking everything out of desperation, and accusing me of the same.

It is conflation of self/other due to enmity. I have not enmity: understanding enmity is superior to suffering it.

The same is true for fear and/or any/all causing suffering: understanding is superior to suffering. Knowing one is suffering leads to understanding consciously its source, which is only external when self/other is conflated. Else: no suffering of self/other.

Ckiit is after whence any/all human suffering. Enmity is a product of any/all suffering.

I don't care about your enmity or friendship, your argument is a straw dog to me....I mean it really is a but of linear arguments woven together.

If everything is a point-circle, it's all-the-same.

You claimed the importance of "acknowledgement", and looking up the definition of "acknowledgement" we get "acceptance". "Acceptance" is defined as "receiving".

And receiving comes by way of? Nothing?

You have to be willing to sow, to reap. You can't be a farmer who sows not, but reaps multitudes.

Simple scroll through merriam Webster or multiple dictionaries shows this causal chain:

(A-->Ac-->R)

And "assumption" according to merriam Webster (def. 7)?

"Recieving".

So both "Acknowledgement" and "assumption" are connected together through "reception".

Do you accept responsibility for your own choices? If so, do you willing receive consequence therefrom?

You are basically stating the importance of "recieving" in order to give validity to your argument, when in reality it not only is just a tautology of "assumption" but you are not being "recieved".

Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance Inference Theorem

If one wishes to receive anything, what is implicit?
You can not have a creation of reaping less sowing.

[Eodnhoj7]

I read the first 2 to 3 sentences, maybe 4...I didn't really count. I didn't really count because now you are nitpicking everything out of desperation.

Define 'acknowledge' and take the inverse (ie. absence of) for 'ignorance'.

You are nitpicking everything out of desperation, and accusing me of the same.

No I am saying it is subject to an inevitable continuum...all my old threads already back up my stance prior to your presentation.

It is conflation of self/other due to enmity. I have not enmity: understanding enmity is superior to suffering it.

I still dont care either way...like I said.."strawdog" everything gets burnt away under the fire of time.

The same is true for fear and/or any/all causing suffering: understanding is superior to suffering. Knowing one is suffering leads to understanding consciously its source, which is only external when self/other is conflated. Else: no suffering of self/other.

Ckiit is after whence any/all human suffering. Enmity is a product of any/all suffering.

I don't care about your enmity or friendship, your argument is a straw dog to me....I mean it really is a but of linear arguments woven together.

If everything is a point-circle, it's all-the-same.

Yes and No. It is one and many as it is triadic. Everything is connected through the original source while still having an inherent individual identity due to its self referential nature it manifests through the source.

You claimed the importance of "acknowledgement", and looking up the definition of "acknowledgement" we get "acceptance". "Acceptance" is defined as "receiving".

And receiving comes by way of? Nothing?

You have to be willing to sow, to reap. You can't be a farmer who sows not, but reaps multitudes.

And sowing requires faith.

Simple scroll through merriam Webster or multiple dictionaries shows this causal chain:

(A-->Ac-->R)

And "assumption" according to merriam Webster (def. 7)?

"Recieving".

So both "Acknowledgement" and "assumption" are connected together through "reception".

Do you accept responsibility for your own choices? If so, do you willing receive consequence therefrom?

We are all responsible for our choices as everything we think, do and feel cycles back on us. Responsibility happens whether you like it or not. I doesn't

You are basically stating the importance of "recieving" in order to give validity to your argument, when in reality it not only is just a tautology of "assumption" but you are not being "recieved".

Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance Inference Theorem

The key word is theorem...thus you are simply creating a story for people to believe in.

If one wishes to receive anything, what is implicit?
You can not have a creation of reaping less sowing.

[nothing]

No I am saying it is subject to an inevitable continuum...all my old threads already back up my stance prior to your presentation.

There is birth, growth, death. It's a circle.
Fold a circle. One is life, the other is death
the middle is choice: *P

Say hello to Adam: equal capacity for good/evil.
What did he choose?

I still dont care either way...like I said.."strawdog" everything gets burnt away under the fire of time.

False:

INRI
Ignis Natura Renovatur Integra
Fire (integral to nature) renews.

The fire is not consumed - ckiit can test for the properties of this fire, which it has.
It is a problem of orientation: one fire renews, the other destroys.
The same is the two Edenic trees: one tree is life, the other is death.

Yes and No. It is one and many as it is triadic. Everything is connected through the original source while still having an inherent individual identity due to its self referential nature it manifests through the source.

...therefor a null circle can be used to define the 'original source' even if having a unique inherent individual identity due to its self referential nature: if this nature is fully known, it can be subtracted/negated out to define the 'original source'. Note: only if the nature is fully known can it be subtracted.

...this is the reason for LORI: can not infer an unknown by way of an unknown.

If a being knows not themselves, they will never know to annihilate themselves in order to "see" the original source without distortion(s).

In any case, the triadic nature of the 'original source' is already known of: keser chokmah binah being crowned: (wisdom<->understanding)
with understanding being any "two",
and wisdom their (any/all if) being "one"
and consciousness being the way viz. da'as: knowledge.

Life is subject to duality, thus two, thus understanding is life and requires: acknowledgement.
Way is making the two one, thus wisdom is consciousness and requires trial and testing.
Truth is all that ever remains if:
know to keep trying, or
know not to believe ...
thus know either way ...

The Truth-Way-Life is thus demonstrably not a man, it is a method, and if ckiit is correct in this, it can be used to collapse the 'states' of Judaism/Christianity/Islam should they be built upon any/all fallibility, because the method itself is infallible less the fallibility of the being using it. That is to say: the fallibility of the being using ckiit will always be a problem before the fallibility of ckiit itself.

And sowing requires faith.

For others: a hoe.

We are all responsible for our choices as everything we think, do and feel cycles back on us. Responsibility happens whether you like it or not. I doesn't

So this is an ongoing potential source of knowledge then: sowing-and-reaping. If one knowingly sows, and tries and tests their harvest, can their knowledge not be used to improve the next and thereon?

The key word is theorem...thus you are simply creating a story for people to believe in.

LOL - so rely on the thing the theorem is flagging as the sole cause of suffering/death: belief.

I'd rather people know for themselves that :

Belief is a problem, and not a solution.

Replace 'belief' with any belief-based ideology: try Islam, and it is certainly true.
The gravity of this truth is ~270 000 000 dead due to Islamic jihad.
So what is the obstacle? Fascism: Islam militarily suppresses any/all criticisms of the 'state'
and religiously slanders/kills others (eg. Jews/Christians/Atheist/Unbelievers/Infidels/Zionists etc.)
while religiously blaming/scapegoating the crimes of its own house onto their adversaries.

[Sculptor]

I would love to have a debate primarily with you on this topic.

Granted, there are many definitions, as, people use this word loosely. But, seeing as you have a unique perspective, I wish to make a proposal, and then see where the definition leads.I am familiar with many of Plato's works, and I understand what happens through budhist meditation, in which the mind can be separated from the body with enough absence of outside stimulation. (a monk could, once far enough along in detachment burn themselves without making a sound, as their mind is so total in disconnect from the physical realm)

I propose this definition for Existence as a noun:

Existence: The energy that always was, that no thing can exist outside of and still exist.

Meditation is not evidence of the mind's independence of the physical world.

[Eodnhoj7]

No I am saying it is subject to an inevitable continuum...all my old threads already back up my stance prior to your presentation.

There is birth, growth, death. It's a circle.
Fold a circle. One is life, the other is death
the middle is choice: *P

Say hello to Adam: equal capacity for good/evil.
What did he choose?

I still dont care either way...like I said.."strawdog" everything gets burnt away under the fire of time.

False:

INRI
Ignis Natura Renovatur Integra
Fire (integral to nature) renews.

The fire is not consumed - ckiit can test for the properties of this fire, which it has.
It is a problem of orientation: one fire renews, the other destroys.
The same is the two Edenic trees: one tree is life, the other is death.

Yes and No. It is one and many as it is triadic. Everything is connected through the original source while still having an inherent individual identity due to its self referential nature it manifests through the source.

...therefor a null circle can be used to define the 'original source' even if having a unique inherent individual identity due to its self referential nature: if this nature is fully known, it can be subtracted/negated out to define the 'original source'. Note: only if the nature is fully known can it be subtracted.

...this is the reason for LORI: can not infer an unknown by way of an unknown.

If a being knows not themselves, they will never know to annihilate themselves in order to "see" the original source without distortion(s).

In any case, the triadic nature of the 'original source' is already known of: keser chokmah binah being crowned: (wisdom<->understanding)
with understanding being any "two",
and wisdom their (any/all if) being "one"
and consciousness being the way viz. da'as: knowledge.

Life is subject to duality, thus two, thus understanding is life and requires: acknowledgement.
Way is making the two one, thus wisdom is consciousness and requires trial and testing.
Truth is all that ever remains if:
know to keep trying, or
know not to believe ...
thus know either way ...

The Truth-Way-Life is thus demonstrably not a man, it is a method, and if ckiit is correct in this, it can be used to collapse the 'states' of Judaism/Christianity/Islam should they be built upon any/all fallibility, because the method itself is infallible less the fallibility of the being using it. That is to say: the fallibility of the being using ckiit will always be a problem before the fallibility of ckiit itself.

And sowing requires faith.

For others: a hoe.

We are all responsible for our choices as everything we think, do and feel cycles back on us. Responsibility happens whether you like it or not. I doesn't

So this is an ongoing potential source of knowledge then: sowing-and-reaping. If one knowingly sows, and tries and tests their harvest, can their knowledge not be used to improve the next and thereon?

The key word is theorem...thus you are simply creating a story for people to believe in.

LOL - so rely on the thing the theorem is flagging as the sole cause of suffering/death: belief.

I'd rather people know for themselves that :

Belief is a problem, and not a solution.

Replace 'belief' with any belief-based ideology: try Islam, and it is certainly true.
The gravity of this truth is ~270 000 000 dead due to Islamic jihad.
So what is the obstacle? Fascism: Islam militarily suppresses any/all criticisms of the 'state'
and religiously slanders/kills others (eg. Jews/Christians/Atheist/Unbelievers/Infidels/Zionists etc.)
while religiously blaming/scapegoating the crimes of its own house onto their adversaries.

Folding a circle is still a circular movement as it requires a continual "turning".

The rest is just built on folding assumptions.

Even the positive and negative lines can be folded so they are superpositioned in such a manner there two states exist in one position (the line) and one line exists in multiple positions.

See double positives thread and scroll down until you see the argument about positive and negative number lines existing on top of eachother naturally.

[nothing]

Folding a circle is still a circular movement as it requires a continual "turning".

The rest is just built on folding assumptions.

It is not an assumption that "living" (ie. not "void") DNA is a double-helix (ie. turning).

To fold a circle is to define a/the vesica piscis (ie. two identical circles with the same radius) with infinity in/as their over-lap. This is the 'as above, so below' being derivative of a single source: a (folded) circle. However, this folded circle is then subject to one tier lower dimension.

Even the positive and negative lines can be folded so they are superpositioned in such a manner there two states exist in one position (the line) and one line exists in multiple positions.

This is fine: when there are two "married" beings (ie. as one, in a shared will relationship) ones "negative" can be the others "positive" and vice versa, thus allowing any/all "negative" to be acted on / discharged (-) to the benefit (+) of the other ad infinitum as needed.

[Eodnhoj7]

Folding a circle is still a circular movement as it requires a continual "turning".

The rest is just built on folding assumptions.

It is not an assumption that "living" (ie. not "void") DNA is a double-helix (ie. turning).

To fold a circle is to define a/the vesica piscis (ie. two identical circles with the same radius) with infinity in/as their over-lap. This is the 'as above, so below' being derivative of a single source: a (folded) circle. However, this folded circle is then subject to one tier lower dimension.

Assumptions through assumptions are a cyclical form inverted to other cyclic forms by reassuring them.

Even the positive and negative lines can be folded so they are superpositioned in such a manner there two states exist in one position (the line) and one line exists in multiple positions.

This is fine: when there are two "married" beings (ie. as one, in a shared will relationship) ones "negative" can be the others "positive" and vice versa, thus allowing any/all "negative" to be acted on / discharged (-) to the benefit (+) of the other ad infinitum as needed.

[nothing]

Assumptions through assumptions are a cyclical form inverted to other cyclic forms by reassuring them.

If this is a knowable property, it is not a problem: rather an indefinite source of knowledge if given context.

Try this definition:

Any general expression of being bound in an ongoing (ie. indefinite) state...

Can one be bound to ignorantly believe/assume in such an ongoing state?
What would be required to cease such an ongoing state?

[Eodnhoj7]

Assumptions through assumptions are a cyclical form inverted to other cyclic forms by reassuring them.

If this is a knowable property, it is not a problem: rather an indefinite source of knowledge if given context.

We know forms and we know we assume assumptions as this is assumed.
We are imprinted by forms.

Try this definition:

Any general expression of being bound in an ongoing (ie. indefinite) state...

Can one be bound to ignorantly believe/assume in such an ongoing state?
What would be required to cease such an ongoing state?

Assuming is being imprinted.

[Tesla]

Physics has not given us anything past industrialization. It has not provided us a ground for morality, or psychological order...or "peace". As a matter of fact the subject object dichotomy is not only not proven but necessitates a story of reality, a god, that robbed the human condition of any sense of quality or meaning.

I only disagree with the first sentence here.
Somehow men are convinced that if they see something it is true, until that "sight" dissolves into a memory and we are left with just imagination.

not all memory is imagination.
Quite frankly, physics has not given us anything but false promises. Modern religion is dead. And generally speaking we are left at a crossroads as to what composes truth...and these are just assumptions.

physics doesn't promise anything. it just explains how the world works. like electricity. pressure and heat. etc. but I agree it does not aid the human condition in seeking answers to truths about human existence. it rather focuses very dryly on realities correlations.

We form the world in accords to our thoughts and beliefs and one only has to step back and look at the sheer schizophrenia of the modern world to realize...everything we built our world on has failed.

very pessimistic. but as a whole, we have failed to build the world that is desirable. but greed and poor laws and leadership, human corruption via power, suppression of knowledge, wasting of resources, egregious acts of horror that humans do to each other for whatever their justification. yeah. the place is bad. but it was always bad. I believe we can make it better. but education is the key, the right education. and that's why I write.

My logic is simple....it is all tautologies at the end of the day, you can justify anything with reason as reason is simple: you break things down and reorganize them into a new whole.

you can. But it doesn't mean it is reality. The mind will accept any reality you can convince it is true. that doesn't mean it IS true.

That is it...there are no rules but form and this form?

Assumed origin point that diverges or converges into linear and circular forms.

Justification is he who creates an impenetrable sphere:

(A-->A) --> B --> ((A^C)-->(AvC))--> ....

Reality is symbol creation, truth is rhetorical in nature as the dialectic derives truth from opinions. Simple observation observes this. It is because of this form that we all reap what we sow.

Rhetoric is about quality as truth, it judges us...dialectic is just opinion based by its own design, it effectively means nothing.

There is an ultimate reality that our brains fail to process well because it isn't designed to. It is designed to procreate and survive in it's environment, the cage of the planet and its resources. We are pretty intelligent nect to earth species. But I bet to the intellects potentially out there we are ants.

I first defined existence this way:

Take a sheet of paper, label it existence and point arrows to eternity in all directions. put a dot on it with a pin, a tiny dot, That is all we know about our apparently infinite universe, that we have no idea what it is expanding in .

Existence is the first cause, if nothing, nothing would ever be, so it is a always was something that is way beyond current mental and technological capability to understand.

but it is something.

[Tesla]

I would love to have a debate primarily with you on this topic.

Granted, there are many definitions, as, people use this word loosely. But, seeing as you have a unique perspective, I wish to make a proposal, and then see where the definition leads.I am familiar with many of Plato's works, and I understand what happens through budhist meditation, in which the mind can be separated from the body with enough absence of outside stimulation. (a monk could, once far enough along in detachment burn themselves without making a sound, as their mind is so total in disconnect from the physical realm)

I propose this definition for Existence as a noun:

Existence: The energy that always was, that no thing can exist outside of and still exist.

Meditation is not evidence of the mind's independence of the physical world.

I never said it was. I was pointing out extreme versions of meditation can lead to psychosis on a lvl that is frightening.

[Eodnhoj7]

Physics has not given us anything past industrialization. It has not provided us a ground for morality, or psychological order...or "peace". As a matter of fact the subject object dichotomy is not only not proven but necessitates a story of reality, a god, that robbed the human condition of any sense of quality or meaning.

I only disagree with the first sentence here.

Somehow men are convinced that if they see something it is true, until that "sight" dissolves into a memory and we are left with just imagination.

not all memory is imagination.
Actually it is, the imaging process we use to imagine reality is the same we use for memory.

Quite frankly, physics has not given us anything but false promises. Modern religion is dead. And generally speaking we are left at a crossroads as to what composes truth...and these are just assumptions.

physics doesn't promise anything. it just explains how the world works. like electricity. pressure and heat. etc. but I agree it does not aid the human condition in seeking answers to truths about human existence. it rather focuses very dryly on realities correlations.

It promises that these stories mean something......but they don't. They keep changing with each new experiment.

They cannot make a connection from an electron to the moral nature of war or even tie it into consciousness...and yet they claim to study fundamentals without giving clarity as to what is even fundamental about what they are doing.

We form the world in accords to our thoughts and beliefs and one only has to step back and look at the sheer schizophrenia of the modern world to realize...everything we built our world on has failed.

very pessimistic. but as a whole, we have failed to build the world that is desirable. but greed and poor laws and leadership, human corruption via power, suppression of knowledge, wasting of resources, egregious acts of horror that humans do to each other for whatever their justification. yeah. the place is bad. but it was always bad. I believe we can make it better. but education is the key, the right education. and that's why I write.

Hardly, it means we are responsible and that responsibility is just a mirror of who we really are...desolation and chaos.

We keep pointing the finger and saying "greed"...but I have yet to meet a person who has not made a decision out of greed or desire.


My logic is simple....it is all tautologies at the end of the day, you can justify anything with reason as reason is simple: you break things down and reorganize them into a new whole.

you can. But it doesn't mean it is reality. The mind will accept any reality you can convince it is true. that doesn't mean it IS true.

Actually it does mean it's true because you used a tautology to argue against a tautology.

Truth is just fragmentation. I can state unicorns are real and be right if applied to the right context.
Real as dreams. Not real empirically.

That is it...there are no rules but form and this form?

Assumed origin point that diverges or converges into linear and circular forms.

Justification is he who creates an impenetrable sphere:

(A-->A) --> B --> ((A^C)-->(AvC))--> ....

Reality is symbol creation, truth is rhetorical in nature as the dialectic derives truth from opinions. Simple observation observes this. It is because of this form that we all reap what we sow.

Rhetoric is about quality as truth, it judges us...dialectic is just opinion based by its own design, it effectively means nothing.

There is an ultimate reality that our brains fail to process well because it isn't designed to. It is designed to procreate and survive in it's environment, the cage of the planet and its resources. We are pretty intelligent nect to earth species. But I bet to the intellects potentially out there we are ants.

Procreation is a tautology within the context of biology.

I first defined existence this way:

Take a sheet of paper, label it existence and point arrows to eternity in all directions. put a dot on it with a pin, a tiny dot, That is all we know about our apparently infinite universe, that we have no idea what it is expanding in .

Existence is the first cause, if nothing, nothing would ever be, so it is a always was something that is way beyond current mental and technological capability to understand.

but it is something.

You cannot define existence without defining definition as definition is a part of existence. Existence is paradoxical by nature.

[Tesla]

You are not attempting to define existence. Your desire is to state that is is whatever it is believed to be by the individual.

You so believe that the mind dictates reality, you refuse to acknowledge that any reality is real.

You first have to admit that reality has an 'ultimate reality' despite what your mind desires to define it as before this discussion has any potential value.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are not attempting to define existence. Your desire is to state that is is whatever it is believed to be by the individual.

You so believe that the mind dictates reality, you refuse to acknowledge that any reality is real.

You first have to admit that reality has an 'ultimate reality' despite what your mind desires to define it as before this discussion has any potential value.

I am saying your question is neither right nor wrong as one cannot define existence without existing through definition.

It is a loop and we are left with existence being form alone as it becomes strict context nothing more or less. Some contexts are more abstract. Other's, such a a daily morning coffee, are more concrete. But there recursive nature, and the instrinsic looping form, manifests a constant nature.

If I say the mind defines reality, and what we sense empirically manifests in the mind, I am saying even the shallowest any percievably emptiest of realities are "real". To fail to take account for how the mind manifests reality, as in we measure and form what is empirical through the mind, is to fail to take into account the vitality of any and all thoughts be it they are good or bad, rational or insane, beautiful or down right terrifying.

The question of reality is a question of aligning one dimension, the empirical, with another, abstractness.