Truth Addict

@Faceless There is one assumption that you might not be aware of when it comes to this specific topic, and that is you believe that beliefs are not reality itself, and that they are something contrary to the Truth. I don't know honestly, but why would you assume that too? Isn't that a belief?

It could be a theory if you wanted to. But when it's not, it's above everything else. I'm not there yet, I think. Doesn't matter. Can't trust anyone on this but myself, maybe I'm deluded by myself too, lol.

Awareness.

I see, but what is the grounding for that?

@Faceless I agree, thoughts are created by experiences, memories, etc... (self). But again, experiences, memories, etc... (self) are created by thoughts in the first place. Where is it all occurring and why?

First of all, I'm not saying that mathematics is wrong or bad or anything like that, I'm here to make some things clear about it. Also, I don't have any historical resources for my information below, I just assume that it happened the way I describe. . So we start: Have you ever happened to question mathematics? Especially this special and most obvious truth of (1+1=2). If you did question it, you'd immediately see what's really going on. So my claim, in brief, is that all mathematics is only concepts within the mind, it doesn't have anything to do with the Truth. For the case I'm here to discuss (1+1=2), whatever object in reality, it doesn't have any digital value (1 or 2 or anything else), because it is itself, and nothing else. Mathematicians and logicians are (or maybe just the human mind) very intelligent thinkers, they were able to create conceptual values for objects, so then they could use it to benefit practically. This means that we agreed (unconsciously, but they did consciously) that every distinct object in reality has a value of 1 and if we have another object then we have another 1 etc... Now what happened is very smart and interesting, as human societies started to get complicated and increased in numbers, etc... They needed to create something to help them with their trades, relationships, life, etc... to make them easier, so they started to use mathematics; they (and we as well) agreed that they could combine distinct objects intellectually, so they created the "plus" symbol and used it as a tool to combine the digital values that they created in the first place. They agreed that they could code this process with language (mathematics), just like any other language, to help socialize and interact easier. So, for example, if we have an orange, we say we have one orange, and if we have another orange we say we have two oranges instead of saying we have one plus one oranges. (One orange + one orange = two oranges) rather than (one orange + one orange = one orange + one orange). Notice how beneficial this is, symbolic abbreviations that help us consume less time, especially these days when we deal with millions and billions. Actually, we can't perform without mathematics, because without mathematics, if you wanted to say one hundred you would say one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one etc... to a hundred, think about a million then ? You see, we created this conceptual framework to make life easier, and it does make it easier. The problem here is that we take it for granted, and we tend to forget how it initiated and evolved. This is the whole show at play, it's only a human convention. Not the Truth. And that's why we can't prove it, because you can't prove what you construct (you can't prove that C + A + T = CAT because it's it by your own definition). In reality, we can't combine stuff together, if we have one orange and another one, and we want to combine them together, we will ultimately get one orange. An easier example to explain this is if we take each orange and squeeze it then combine the juices together, we will only get one single juice not two separate juices. That's why the final result of any combination must be one number that has one value, not a single digit necessarily, but a single whole number (a unity) (37485836 is a single number or a unity, because it's not 37485835 + 1)... (CAT is a single unity, because it's not C + A + T). This is a proof of the unity of everything. One contains everything. 1 + 1 = 1 And I'm done. @Dodo (hope I made my claims clear to you). @Leo Gura (just in case you haven't seen the post).

@Outer I think I owe you an apology too.

@Dodo Hey, sorry for the late reply, but I thought very much about what happened here (our discussion) and came out with this result: First of all, I apologise for being blind of my arrogance. I should have seen it in myself and acted more maturely and admitted that I was not precise at all. Now I realized the problem, I was metaphorical about my statements, and you took them literally. And that made me lose sight of the main point of my post, which therefore led us out of context, I guess this sums it all up. And to be honest, it was totally my fault (because you should take every statement literally unless it's mentioned otherwise) and I'm sorry. I hope you forgive me cuz that will set me free. So, just to be clear, 1 + 1 = 2 , no doubts. My whole post was just a pointer to show that mathematics is a collective conceptual agreement (couldn't edit post title), and you can disagree with me if you want, you definitely know better than me since you are a maths teacher. Let us forget the past, and forgive. I hope that mistake will not happen again, and I'm sorry if I caused you any discomfort. Much much love and respect. ?

@Dodo I said "inquiring" alone, without a "self". Maybe it's only my opinion. Maybe I'm deluded. We agreed that it's the same thing at last. What is different though is the conceptualizing, because an object is only itself, and multiple objects is a concept. One and one is still not quite accurate, because it's a value and a concept, maybe I was thrilled a little bit. The real thing (not necessarily actually real) is what is, not what we think it is. Saying an orange is also a conceptualizing, therefore we can't rely on discussion, all we have is our subjective experiences, and inquiring. I don't defend anything, I only say what I see, and you kept quoting and mentioning me until I responded, I didn't want to reply at first. Much love ?

@Outer @Dodo There is experience. Of course 1 and 1 is a concept, only here. But in your experience it's not, because it's it, a 1 and 1. Not 2 because 2 is a concept. All you need is some inquiring and you'll see what I see.

@Outer You still don't get it. You guys are most of the time off topic, maybe it's me that's bad at delivering ideas. I could never have 2 oranges, this only happens in your mind. Instead, I could only have 1 and 1 oranges. You and me and others agreed unconsciously to call 1 and 1 a 2. Still don't get it? I lost hope.

@Outer I wasn't discussing the validity of mathematics, obviously it's valid and practical. It's very beneficial to us. But that's not the point. My main aim was to show you how it's irrelevant to Truth, that (1+1=2) is not a Truth, (1+1=2) is a collective agreement, a human convention, and therefore cannot be proven or disproven. I always thought (1+1=2) is a "Mathematical Truth" or a proof for the validity of mathematics. My original post was to show you that mistake, so you don't fall for it like I did. That's all.

We'll call you back as soon as possible. "I tried to explain as simple as possible, though I see things slightly differently, meaning that I see some Truths that some people can't see, and I'm not bragging, I'm just saying that for the very advanced people here that might criticize me (for example, an orange is not an orange in truth, it's also a concept)." ... I deleted this part before posting cuz it felt like bragging, though it isn't. And it's hard to explain it to people unless you use their terms, I knew some of you are more advanced than me, so I kept that part in my notes. We're on the same board.

The One, The Absolute. He begets not, nor is He begotten. None is like Him, and none is supposed to be like Him. Nothing like a likeness of Him.

No, it's just a statement and it's an illusion. All statements are pointers to the Truth one way or another. You know the Truth when you see all the illusions.

@Dodo There are no true or false statements. There are only statements, when you add a description, you add a belief. True or false is just a belief. 2 itself is 1 in its nature because it is not 1 and 1. Haven't you realized this Truth yet?

@Dodo I don't trust that. But also it doesn't matter. Super Mario World was written in "6502 assembly". Does it mean that this programming language is the Truth?

Yes, only logically. But what if there's something beyond logic? A strange loop, for example. All language is a collective agreement, not Truth, including my statement(s).

@Dodo And no, I can use language to tell you that language is a collective nonsense. I can use meaning to tell you that meaning is meaningless. I can enter the matrix to get you out of it. In fact, I need to, it's the only way, sometimes paradox is inevitable. ..... But if you're here to win, then you win. I wouldn't mind. Have a nice day/night, whatever. ?

@Leo Gura Now I get a sense of how hard your job is. Delivering insights is not easy as I imagined it to be. Respect Leo! Really.

@George Paul It's intelligent. Just like it exists. Non-intelligence (illusion) is just a concept that occurs within infinite intelligence (Truth). Just like non-existence (illusion) is just a concept that occurs within existence (Truth). It's intelligent in its design. That's why it's here, that's why it exists. Because otherwise it won't. Randomness will never ever make such complicated, delicious, and beautiful design (as materialism assumes). Same goes for non-intelligence. Therefore it's infinitely intelligent.

@Dodo Sure. @dharm4 C++.

Thank you ? Definitely Einstein got it. Otherwise he would have been some typical "nerd" or maybe a "philosophical zombie".

Thank you ? you just gave the brief for the whole post: "A collective agreement, a language, Not Truth" I lost hope for a minute, cuz it's so obvious, it can't be unseen. Still it's hard for some people to see it. And I would like to read your book when it's done if you don't mind ?

Sorry guys, been playing for ages ?