Question about why is there something rather than nothing video

[The Crocodile]

2 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

A square-circle is precisely a square-circle, and not a square nor a circle.

A four-sided triangle is precisely a four-sided triangle, and not a triangle.

A cat-dog is precisely a cat-dog, and not a cat nor a dog.

Infinity can bleed identities together, but that doesn't refute the mutually exclusive affinities of partitions within consciousness.

The polarity of discreet things are absolute insofar as they are so.

How about a squarcle-circle that is precisely both a square and a circle.

Or a cat-dog that is precisely a non-cat-dog dog.

You can create as many contradictions as possible.

That's why I think there are infinite copies of the present moment with infinitely small and precise variations going in infinite directions of consciousness and into infinite timelines and infinite timeline-timeline-timelines.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You are distracting from the thing I was pointing to.

I seem to disagree with what you're pointing to since I think the nature of reality is illogical.

Like if Plotinus or Spinoza proves the existence of God through infinite extension to a one substance of Oneness you can't just ignore the fuller implications of that.

[Leo Gura]

43 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

I think the nature of reality is illogical.

That's what I pointed against.

[Someone here]

57 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

Or a cat-dog that is precisely a non-cat-dog dog.

 

When you say this what picture comes to your mind ? You've turned philosophy into sophistry.

How about fgd6tguh jhgcguu jhgyu8i ?

[Hojo]

@The Crocodile To define something you must say its not something else, thats how logic works at fundamental, not that it is that thing. That means logically you are saying a triangle isnt 4 points and it isnt 2 points to define that the triangle is 3 points. Thats how you logically come to the conclusion that its a triangle. To define you must say not that because the triangle is consciousness(nothing). The triangle you point to and to be able to appear in your mind must be defined as not having 1 2 4 5 6 to infinite points, then you get 3 points as the remainder and thats what a triangle is.

If a triangle somehow had 4 points it couldnt be a triangle because we already defined logically that a triangle dosent have 4 points. The mind is doing something backwards to create logic. Its taking conciousness (nothing) and then saying what it witnesses isnt all the other stuff (infinity) and by doing that you see what it is.

If you want to know if something is wet you touch it feel wet and logically deduce that its not dry.

Edited April 19 by Hojo

[RendHeaven]

58 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

How about a squarcle-circle that is precisely both a square and a circle.

Still wouldn't be a simple square sans circle

[The Crocodile]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's what I pointed against.

You are crashing headlong into your highly limited perception. You can say there is One formlessness that can inhabit infinite multiple forms, logically uniting all of them into a perfect order with no contradicts, and even have mystical experiences to corroborate this. The problem is that emptiness is only something that makes sense in this reality frame and not necessarily others, for example you could have entire forms made entirely of invisible emptiness with no color, no smell, no sensory data that would nevertheless be forms and be interactive with themselves, they just would not be perceivable by us--and for them their equivalent of emptiness would be form. They could have a mystical school based on how there is One form that inhabits all formlessnesses.

The existence of a square circle does contradict putting the universe into a neat syntax or logic, because that's just one example. You can take the sum total of the ENTIRE MULTIVERSE and contradict that with something else, or the entire poly-omniverses.

2 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

Still wouldn't be a simple square sans circle

It very well could be.

3 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@The Crocodile To define something you must say its not something else, thats how logic works at fundamental, not that it is that thing. That means logically you are saying a triangle isnt 4 points and it isnt 2 points to define that the triangle is 3 points. Thats how you logically come to the conclusion that its a triangle. To define you must say not that because the triangle is consciousness. The triangle you point to and to be able to appear in your mind must be defined as not having 1 2 4 5 6 to infinite points, then you get 3 points as the remainder and thats what a triangle is.

What you know as being logical is not fundamental to logic, and even logic is not fundamental.

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

When you say this what picture comes to your mind ? You've turned philosophy into sophistry.

How about fgd6tguh jhgcguu jhgyu8i ?

This is not "philosophy". The problem with Spinoza or Plotinus or you is that you try to put the universe into too clean of an order, when infinite other perceptions are conceivable that contradict or transcend such order.

If you admit Absolute Infinity you must admit paradox.

If you admit a limited infinity and posit it must be logical, that contradicts the absolute principle, and you have no knowledge one way or the other that this limited infinity must be logical, it may very well be illogical.

If you do not admit infinity then you probably would admit a vast finite order that is incomprehensible to you, and certainly not human and not physical as we know it.

[Hojo]

@The Crocodile Its not fundamental but needed for creation. Without logic you have 0 story. So if any higher God has witnessed it it has to be logical. And the highest God witnessed everything.

Edited April 19 by Hojo

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

If you admit Absolute Infinity you must admit paradox.

If you admit a limited infinity and posit it must be logical, that contradicts the absolute principle, and you have no knowledge one way or the other that this limited infinity must be logical, it may very well be illogical.

Correct. Good point . I guess we've hit a dead end . I do believe reality can't be boxed in a model .be it infinite or finite .etc

Here's a salvia trip report from a  banned user on this forum :

"

Like I said, it's absolutely ineffable. It tore me apart and reassembled me in the outer layers of infinity, and this kept happening forever, for all infinity. And when I say forever I mean forever. It showed me worlds that are so beyond this one that describing even the tiniest part could fill 500 books and not get even remotely close. It showed me all levels of existence, and then threw me out of them as if they're nothing. It's simply unimaginable, no words could come close, or touch this experience in any way imaginable. If you've ever done some psychedelic and broken through, multiply that by a million and it's still a tame experience in comparison. It breaks reality. This experience happened more than a decade ago and I'm still collecting the pieces. I honestly have no idea what the fuck happened. It's hard to talk about because while I faintly remember the experience, I just know I can't English it because it would be like trying to stick a fork into the moon.

I know this doesn't help much but I literally can't share the experience not because I don't want to but because it was out of this world and as such, unable to be mapped to any concept from this world. If you ask me, it was beyond even death. I was infinity, forever. How I ever found a way back to my body is a mystery. It was the weirdest thing that ever happened to me by a factor of one trillion.

This should go without saying but please do NOT take Salvia. I haven't benefited much from this experience, other than being shown that everyone is completely full of shit and nobody actually knows what's going on. If you're going to do psychedelics, take any "lesser" psychedelic, they are far easier to integrate. Even DMT, while I haven't done it, doesn't sound like it has the potency of Salvia. I've read hundreds of trip reports from DMT and not a single one mentioned being stuck in infinity or experiencing months or years in another world. Salvia CAN take you there. So can Datura. Stay away from those two."

[Nilsi]

12 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

You are crashing headlong into your highly limited perception. You can say there is One formlessness that can inhabit infinite multiple forms, logically uniting all of them into a perfect order with no contradicts, and even have mystical experiences to corroborate this. The problem is that emptiness is only something that makes sense in this reality frame and not necessarily others, for example you could have entire forms made entirely of invisible emptiness with no color, no smell, no sensory data that would nevertheless be forms and be interactive with themselves, they just would not be perceivable by us--and for them their equivalent of emptiness would be form. They could have a mystical school based on how there is One form that inhabits all formlessnesses.

The existence of a square circle does contradict putting the universe into a neat syntax or logic, because that's just one example. You can take the sum total of the ENTIRE MULTIVERSE and contradict that with something else, or the entire poly-omniverses.

It very well could be.

What you know as being logical is not fundamental to logic, and even logic is not fundamental.

This is not "philosophy". The problem with Spinoza or Plotinus or you is that you try to put the universe into too clean of an order, when infinite other perceptions are conceivable that contradict or transcend such order.

If you admit Absolute Infinity you must admit paradox.

If you admit a limited infinity and posit it must be logical, that contradicts the absolute principle, and you have no knowledge one way or the other that this limited infinity must be logical, it may very well be illogical.

If you do not admit infinity then you probably would admit a vast finite order that is incomprehensible to you, and certainly not human and not physical as we know it.

All of this was already agonized over in the Baroque - between Spinoza, Leibniz, and Pascal - each offering a radically distinct response to the question of whether reason or logic can grasp the infinite.

Spinoza believed in a fully immanent rational order - Deus sive Natura - in which the infinite unfolds through a single substance governed by logical necessity. For him, logic is not a tool applied to reality - it is reality.

Leibniz agreed that the universe is rational, but deferred final understanding to God alone, offering the infinitesimal calculus and the monad as elegant but incomplete glimpses into this infinite harmony.

But it is Pascal who stands alone as the anti-rationalist among rationalists, the one who sees that logic itself collapses at the threshold of infinity.

“Reason’s last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it.”

Pascal’s infinite is not a plenum but an abyss. A rupture. His logic does not totalize - it breaks down in awe, in trembling. His is a tragic metaphysics: the wager is not just about belief - it’s about the limits of knowing, and the humiliation of reason before what it cannot contain.

Edited April 19 by Nilsi

[Hojo]

@Someone here This is a problem with English, not paradox. You can turn any qualia into a word. If any 2 people can have an experience and talk about it and form it into a word they can do it. But we dont have this option availiable via english. If someone has a word for it and they described it perfectly and brought the experience back up and said the word you would put the emotion or qualia into a word and could describe it. The experience is rare shunned upon and taboo so we dont have a word and dont talk about it.

Edited April 19 by Hojo

[Someone here]

@Hojo well what I'm trying to get at is that reality as a whole  simply cannot be figured out by language or logic .since language and logic and anything you say no matter how smart-assey it is is part of reality and cannot encapsulate the whole. The finger can't grasp the hand .

[Hojo]

@Someone here Yes thats what makes it so interesting. Almost mad to think about. Why try to do something you cant do.

Edited April 19 by Hojo

[Leo Gura]

When I speak of logic I do not limit logic to the human mind's logic. Human logic is just the tip of the iceberg. Infinity has a higher dimensional hyper-logic which includes but goes way beyond human logic. Even if you have something like a hyperbolic 4 sided triangle it will still be subject to hyper-logic.

Infinity itself is hyper-logical. There is a logic even to madness.

Edited April 19 by Leo Gura

[Hojo]

If you pay attention during a dream you can notice that there is a voice narrating the entire thing logically. But dreams arent logical. Whos the king of logic in imagination?

Edited April 19 by Hojo

[Breakingthewall]

Nothing that isn't absolutely logical can exist because everything is synchronized. Anything that exists is synchronized with something else, which is synchronized with something else, to the infinite power. Nothing can be illogical, since it wouldn't exist 

[integral]

What’s the difference between logic and coherence? They seem like the same thing.

Do distinctions cause logic, or does logic cause distinctions?

Or is it that distinction is logic? Logic is the structure of distinction?

they are co-arising

Edited April 19 by integral

[Someone here]

What's a thing anyways 🤣?

[eTorro]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

When I speak of logic I do not limit logic to the human mind's logic. Human logic is just the tip of the iceberg. Infinity has a higher dimensional hyper-logic which includes but goes way beyond human logic. Even if you have something like a hyperbolic 4 sided triangle it will still be subject to hyper-logic.

Infinity itself is hyper-logical. There is a logic even to madness.

Is it possible that we'll never know the mystery of reality? We can only speculate about it and observe phenomena from limitations. Humans are limited. Can we know with certainty that God exists? 

[Nilsi]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

When I speak of logic I do not limit logic to the human mind's logic. Human logic is just the tip of the iceberg. Infinity has a higher dimensional hyper-logic which includes but goes way beyond human logic. Even if you have something like a hyperbolic 4 sided triangle it will still be subject to hyper-logic.

Infinity itself is hyper-logical. There is a logic even to madness.

Is there logic in falling in love with a person? In the trembling uncertainty of desire, the half-said words, the haunted silences? In the way two bodies orbit one another, drawn by forces neither fully understands? What logic could possibly account for the trembling specificity of another’s gaze - the way it undoes you, not abstractly, but in the gut, the breath, the skin?

Is there logic in the density of a Franz Kline painting? The way its black forms erupt across the canvas, less as representations than as raw gestures -slashes of feeling fossilized in paint, screaming without language? The way meaning pulses not from clarity but from voids, from ruptures, from the sheer weight of presence and absence coiled together?

Is there logic in the way a summer breeze licks your sweaty skin after a long walk through the city - mingling with the scent of warm asphalt, overripe fruit, cigarette smoke, exhaust fumes, jasmine? In the way memory floods the senses, and you are momentarily returned to something you can’t name, but feel entirely?

All the best things in life resist logic. Not because they are illogical, but because they are alogical - outside the scope of what logic can grasp. They are singular, unrepeatable, irreducibly real. Logic, with its distinctions and categories, carves reality into manageable pieces - but life happens in the overflow, in what spills out and refuses containment.

This is the real epistemic trap: believing that what can be articulated is all that is. That what can be defined is more real than what can only be felt, lived, or lost. Logic is not false - it’s just not enough. And the tragedy is not that it fails, but that it blinds us to everything that escapes it.

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

there logic in falling in love with a person? In the trembling uncertainty of desire, the half-said words, the haunted silences? In the way two bodies orbit one another, drawn by forces neither fully understands? What logic could possibly account for the trembling specificity of another’s gaze - the way it undoes you, not abstractly, but in the gut, the breath, the skin?

Yes, the logic of the monkeys. Everything is because a reason,.or Betty, because infinite reasons. every energetic vibration that emerges in empty space is infinitely interconnected and its appearance is absolutely logical in infinite directions