1000+ Spiritual Questions Answered in Less than 5 Minutes

[Preetom]

Save yourself from all the unnecessary confusion.

Note that confusion and not-knowing are not the same thing!
Goes to the very heart of the limitation of thoughts.

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Preetom

[non_nothing]

We take "WHY" question much granted.

 

Why question is weak.

Why question is unable to answer everything.

 

But we take it granted. 

 

Watch my proposal:

You start by asking bunch of "why's"

Your starting point can be any point. I'll take for example "Why there's atoms"

Possible answer: There's universe

Then the satisfaction of this iteration gave a little bit more power to the "WHY" question or "WHY" game you play. You think we can iterate further and further to get every answers. That's what you're doing. What YOU like to do. Iterate, scale it. 

Your next question is "Why there's universe"

Possible answer: Because of big bang

Yes you get a little more dopamine rush everytime. Because this "WHY" question is so good, It gives you results.

Couple of next series of questions, when this gets to a plateu, you don't simply abandon the loyalty you've given to "WHY" question, instead you abandon the subject.

 

Let me also show you another proposal and see how your "granted" why question is crushed:

Watch this:

Why 1 + 1 => 2

 

I'm not stupid if you asked that question. You're taking too much information granted. The absurdity that you took 1+1 => 2 so granted is our subject here. You've never thought of it and went on building your structure over top of your reasoning/mind. There's no 1+1 => 2 until you take it granted. It would be 1 + 1 = 1 if I wanted to take it granted. You can pretty much explore a lot of properties and structures on universe that may fit into the solution of 1 + 1 => 1. 

[ajasatya]

whoa, we've got a mathematician here 

[Preetom]

@non_nothing

That made a lot of sense. Thanks! So it's urgent to question the satisfaction derived from the 1st iteration before the whole thing goes down the toilet in infinite iterations.

@ajasatya What's wrong with mathematicians?  

[ajasatya]

33 minutes ago, Preetom said:

@ajasatya What's wrong with mathematicians?  

i was being a little sarcastic (which is extremely rare from me).

some people talk about unusual math like "1+1=3" or "2+2=5", but they don't know what they're talking about.

"1", "+", "=" etc are just symbols used to manipulate logical derivations from a predefined set of definitions: the axioms of mathematics. so using them to express things that cannot be inferred has no value at all.

of course you can define your own set of axioms to make 1+1=7 or whatever. it's no big deal. but people talk about it as if they're saying something very interesting .

here's a link for those who want to go deeper. notice the subsections on the left panel.

Edited November 1, 2018 by ajasatya

[Preetom]

@ajasatya

Interesting! Thanks for elaborating it.

So a statement like 1+1=2 only justifies the premises it is built upon. It cannot go past it's own premise. Can this be another way of saying what you've just said?

[ajasatya]

51 minutes ago, Preetom said:

So a statement like 1+1=2 only justifies the premises it is built upon. It cannot go past it's own premise. Can this be another way of saying what you've just said?

almost there, but the implication works the other way around. the premises justify statements like 1+1=2.

if you change the axioms, which you're free to do so and build all sorts of useless mathematical tools, then you'll be able to derive weird assertions, such as 0=1.

example... try inserting the following rule in the current mathematical world and see what happens for yourself:

"if q is a complex number, then q² = q³."

Edited November 1, 2018 by ajasatya

[Preetom]

@ajasatya

So the means justify the end and the end justify the means, and neither makes any sense outside the system they are in?

 

[Shin]

Why can't there be an on/off button ?

Please just push my button ?

[ajasatya]

5 minutes ago, Preetom said:

@ajasatya

So the means justify the end and the end justify the means, and neither makes any sense outside the system they are in?

good question, but this is my last off-topic post on this thread.

the art of exploring mathematics is about seeing how interestingly far the system goes. beautiful minds do so by proposing challenging ideas, which we don't know whether they're in or outside the system at first. and then they build a deductive path to reach their proposition using only hypotheses the entire community agree with. and then you go like "whoa, i didn't see that even though it's been available since i was born!". the fermat's last theorem is an excellent example.

there are also things that we cannot even tell if they're in or outside the system. not because we don't know how to build the deductive path, but because it's impossible to prove them right or wrong. this is a consequence of the largely known gödel's incompleteness theorems.

you see, the mathematical world has its mysteries even with a formalized system of finite axioms. exploring the "outside the system" world does make sense because the barrier that divides the inside and the outside is not completely clear. so what seems to be outside may actually be inside.

the basic set of mathematical axioms is built upon common sense because mathematics arose as a practical tool, even though the consequences of those go beyond practical! but saying things that are consequences of arbitrary sets of axioms is just uninteresting.

[non_nothing]

Just to note I've completed for a week about why 1 + 1 => 2

Results were enormous. If this is your path BTW. No one is required to do that.

I've discovered that we simply do not aware of what we are talking when it comes to mathematics,

 

Can you divide 1 to 7 ? I've thought about this for a day. We all know to get up a calculator and press bunch of buttons to generate results.

It's all about your intention. Think about the following problem: A cookie seller sells cookies for 7 cents. How much cookie would I be able to buy for 10 cents? Just one. Not 10/7. It's not 1,42587 or something weird. I defined this as sickness on my contemplation notebook. I still remember the numbers because that shows how much work is done on this subject. If I had 1000000 cents, I would be able to buy 142587 cookies plus 1 cent in return for 1 million cents. Basically 142587 times 7 equals 999999 and seller had to return me 1 cent.

 

Now am I able get some cookie for 1 cent? Think about it. You can't divide 1 to 7 here. Seller would point his middle finger to you.

 

Let's think about another problem. Can I divide a rectangle shaped cake to 7 equally pieces? Challenging right? Let's start thinking in simple terms. If I had to divide it to 2 pieces, I'd just go somewhere random in middle and stab the knife, split then compare the pieces.

What did I just do there? I used equality operator to compare the new items to be equal, in order to be sure? What's my method? Intuition and observation through eye. 
Can we even define an equality operator? Not even talking about splitting the cake in perfect 2. Think about it. Now you'll see the weakness of such questions or operators such as "why, equality" etc.
I will just stop here before this taking the entire thread but I guess this would be enough to show out some points.

Edited November 1, 2018 by non_nothing

[Preetom]

1 hour ago, Shin said:

Why can't there be an on/off button ?

Please just push my button ?

@Shin Honestly answer this question

1) What are you exactly expecting? Try to define that grand event or signal after which you'd consider that your search is 'done'? What is your definition of being 'done'?

PS: just like you dropped your false identity of master Yoda, cosmic Cat etc, similarly drop your false identity of Piccolo  

What are you without your memes and humor?

[Shin]

4 minutes ago, Preetom said:

@Shin Honestly answer this question

1) What are you exactly expecting? Try to define that grand event or signal after which you'd consider that your search is 'done'? What is your definition of being 'done'?

PS: just like you dropped your false identity of master Yoda, cosmic Cat etc, similarly drop your false identity of Piccolo  

What are you without your memes and humor?

I don't know, that's why I want to know ?

[Preetom]

 

2 minutes ago, Shin said:

I don't know, that's why I want to know ?

Don't you 'know' that you don't know? Don't you always 'know'?

@Shin

Would you be able to accept it completely if the grand finale of your Realization happens while you're taking a dump? 

[Shin]

8 minutes ago, Preetom said:

 

Don't you 'know' that you don't know? Don't you always 'know'?

@Shin

Would you be able to accept it completely if the grand finale of your Realization happens while you're taking a dump? 

I know that I don't know, because I know the only way to know is by knowing experientially, and I don't ?

Yes lol, I just want to know ?

I expect something to change, but not necessarily something big, just the truth.

The Piccolo avatar is there to remember I have to meditate more, but I can put an uncool avatar if you want me to, daddy ?

[Preetom]

3 minutes ago, Shin said:

Yes lol, I just want to know ?

I expect something to change, but not necessarily something big, just the truth.

This is what I was asking in the first place!

What is this 'thing' you're trying to know? What is this 'change' you're trying to get?

Be very specific. You're putting so much effort and preparation to embark on a search for something.

Don't you think that you at least need to be clear about what you're searching for?  

[Shin]

2 minutes ago, Preetom said:

This is what I was asking in the first place!

What is this 'thing' you're trying to know? What is this 'change' you're trying to get?

Be very specific. You're putting so much effort and preparation to embark on a search for something.

Don't you think that you at least need to be clear about what you're searching for?  

What I really am existentially ?

I know I'm not the body nor the brain, or even the mind, but I still think I'm somewhere between the eyes.

Even though there is nothing to support that, it feels arbitrary.

[Preetom]

17 minutes ago, Shin said:

What I really am existentially ?

I know I'm not the body nor the brain, or even the mind, but I still think I'm somewhere between the eyes.

Even though there is nothing to support that, it feels arbitrary.

Would you accept whatever honestly comes out at the end of your search?

Lets say, if it turns out that you're a bird after all the search, would you be open to accept it? Or would you hang onto something else and deny the honest inquiry? I mean, do you have a prefabricated notion of what you must or might be?

Edited November 1, 2018 by Preetom

[Shin]

11 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Would you accept whatever honestly comes out at the end of your search?

Lets say, if it turns town that you're a bird after all the search, would you be open to accept it? Or would you hang onto something else and deny the honest inquiry? I mean, do you have a prefabricated notion of what you must or might be?

I would accept whatever the truth is, that is what I try to do in everything I do.

From all I read I'm supposed to be either everything or nothing or both, but even that I try to let go because that is still concepts.

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Shin

[Preetom]

@ajasatya

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate further. I probably won't see mathematics the same ever again haha..

That outside/inside dichotomy was interesting. So there really is no actual distinction about where to set the boundary ultimately. 

@non_nothing

Nice contemplations. Most times, I run out of juice quickly when using symbols like 1,2,3,ab,c etc for contemplation. Soon the question arises, on what foundation are these symbols based upon? Why am I automatically restricting myself with these symbols? After all, a symbol can be everything BUT the thing it represents.

Then I see that what is Not a symbol? At this point, thoughts exhaust itself and a conceptless knowing prevails. Being aware of being aware.