Simple Mathematical Proof that I am Awareness

[Dodo]

I don't know what I am. Body, Soul, Thought, Ego, I don't know! Let's say therefore that I am X.

X - Awareness = Nothing (If I am not aware, I do not exist)

Therefore

X = Nothing + Awareness

X = Awareness

Therefore I am Awareness (proven mathematically).

Tadaa! 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Dodo

[TheAvatarState]

But your core assumption is that awareness is the only thing that exists. Point to awareness. Where does it exist? 

[lmfao]

@Dodo I don't know how exactly you formulated the statement "X - Awareness = Nothing (If I am not aware, I do not exist)",but I wonder if you're using the same reasoning I'm about to demonstrate, with the reasoning being shown to be faulty. Whether or not brains or hearts exist or not is not the point, the point I'm making is that if a system can only exist in the presence of more than 1 variable then the system cannot exist in the absence of one of the variables (e.g. brain) but that does not mean the system can be reduced to that 1 variable. 

 

X-Brain=Nothing (without a brain I do not exist)

⇒ X= Brain

However I could equally say:

X-Heart=Nothing (without a heart I do not exist)

⇒ X=heart

X=heart and X=brain

⇒ heart=brain

However "heart"="brain" is a false statement.

 

Your reasoning is perhaps likened to this.

A= b + c + d

⇒ c+d≠A

⇒ A=b

 

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by lmfao

[Dodo]

7 hours ago, lmfao said:

@Dodo I don't know how exactly you formulated the statement "X - Awareness = Nothing (If I am not aware, I do not exist)",but I wonder if you're using the same reasoning I'm about to demonstrate, with the reasoning being shown to be faulty. Whether or not brains or hearts exist or not is not the point, the point I'm making is that if a system can only exist in the presence of more than 1 variable then the system cannot exist in the absence of one of the variables (e.g. brain) but that does not mean the system can be reduced to that 1 variable. 

 

X-Brain=Nothing (without a brain I do not exist)

⇒ X= Brain

However I could equally say:

X-Heart=Nothing (without a heart I do not exist)

⇒ X=heart

X=heart and X=brain

⇒ heart=brain

However "heart"="brain" is a false statement.

 

Your reasoning is perhaps likened to this.

A= b + c + d

⇒ c+d≠A

⇒ A=b

 

 

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but the thing is the only shared element around all those objects that you are mentioning is the Awareness. Without Awareness there is no Brain. Without Awareness there is no Heart. So Brain and Heart are not essential to me. 

What you are using for the Heart and Brain equations is using assumptions that without a heart and without a brain you cannot exist. This is a belief and not a fact as it is about awareness. 

Since it is not a fact, you cannot use it in the equation! X-brain = nothing is not a proven fact, while X-awareness = nothing IS a proven fact - proven in our experience. 
 

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Dodo

[Dodo]

9 hours ago, TheAvatarState said:

But your core assumption is that awareness is the only thing that exists. Point to awareness. Where does it exist? 

That is not my assumption. I have no assumptions in the equation. The only thing I am using is the fact that without awareness I do not exist, which is a fact proven by experience.

Let's extend the math:
Me = X, ok let's use Me instead of X for simplicity.

Let's suppose that Awareness is not the only thing that exists.

Me = Awareness + Objects in Awareness 
Lets give those objects in awareness variables = o1, o2,... oN

Me = Awareness + o1 + o2 + ... + oN

Lets remove object o1 and o2 from Me

Me - o1 - o2 = Awareness + o3+o4+o5 +... +oN
But since Me - o1 - o2 is still aware, therefore it is still me! LOL
So Me is not really a constant, perhaps it is infinity, but check other post for that, we dont want to go on a tangent much.

Me = Awareness + o3+ ... + oN

Well let's do this to all the objects then

Me - o3- o4 -... - oN  = Awareness + nothing

but since there is Awareness, it is still me! 
so Me = Awareness 

also from this line of reasoning, we also prove that Me/Awareness is infinite, since that is the only thing from which you can take or add as many objects and it remains itself. 

PS: Perhaps Essential Me is the more correct wording. Me = the Awareness + the human components (objects), but the Essential Me, is that only thing without which I cannot be - no matter what that I  is - whether it is human or a non-human entity or non-entity - it cannot be Me only if there is no awareness. 

 

PSS: I have a counter argument for the equation 

Me = Awareness + o1 + o2 +.. +oN 

Now let's remove Awareness from both sides

Me - Awareness = o1 + o2 + ... + oN

Now we said o1, o2, ... oN are objects In awareness. Since we have no proof that objects can exist outside of awareness, this equation breaks, or you can say the objects become nothing, since they are not experienced.  Me - Awareness = Nothing (At least from my POV) 
In more logical terms, o1, o2, etc are my body parts - they remain on Earth after my "death", but they are not Me, because there is no awareness there.  Me = o1 + o2 +... + oN does not work, since there is no awareness there - there would be no experience of these objects, so how can they be me. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Dodo

[Dodo]

7 hours ago, lmfao said:

@Dodo I don't know how exactly you formulated the statement "X - Awareness = Nothing (If I am not aware, I do not exist)",but I wonder if you're using the same reasoning I'm about to demonstrate, with the reasoning being shown to be faulty. Whether or not brains or hearts exist or not is not the point, the point I'm making is that if a system can only exist in the presence of more than 1 variable then the system cannot exist in the absence of one of the variables (e.g. brain) but that does not mean the system can be reduced to that 1 variable. 

 

X-Brain=Nothing (without a brain I do not exist)

⇒ X= Brain

However I could equally say:

X-Heart=Nothing (without a heart I do not exist)

⇒ X=heart

X=heart and X=brain

⇒ heart=brain

However "heart"="brain" is a false statement.

 

Your reasoning is perhaps likened to this.

A= b + c + d

⇒ c+d≠A

⇒ A=b

 

 

 

 

you can say X-Brain = Not Human
But how do you know Not Human = Nothing?
Your equations are operating under the belief that X is a Human system - which we know from our science cannot operate without some of its major parts. But are you sure that when someone removes your physical brain, you will stop existing? This is the belief. While the fact is that you can only stop existing if the awareness is removed. 

To provide an example, I give you this hypothetical scenario, when you die, you become a light body or a ghost. That light body/ghost has awareness. Then God punishes your light body and removes it. Now you are not even that, but still have the experience of "I am", "I exist", even though there is no object you can point to that is you.

However the only way to become absolute nothing, is to remove that Iam-ness. That Iam-ness is what you are, not any object. So only when that is removed, you can be nothing (which of course would not be you, it would be nothing, you wouldn't know about it)

See you can remove all kinds of objects from that X, but it will remain you, unless the Awareness is taken away. This contemplation which you triggered in me also proves that Awareness is infinite as compared to Objects. You can take out as many objects from Me, it will still be Me, so Me (which is Awareness - proven by the equation) is infinite. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Dodo

[Dodo]

19 minutes ago, Shiva said:

This is great! 

Except there's one thing we mustn't forget:

"Nothing" ≠ 0

Hence,

X - awareness = nothing

But counterintuitively,

X = nothing + awareness AND X = nothing - awareness

So,

X ≠ awareness

But,

X = nothing

It makes no sense mathematically. But in the absolute sense 1+1=2 doesn't work.

Mindfuck  

 

Well 

X = nothing + awareness 
X = nothing - awareness

If X = infinity and Awareness = infinity, this equation states

Infinity = Infinity and Infinity = -Infinity (which is true) 

Which also means that saying X != Awareness is not that big of a mindfuck tbh, because you can say that Infinity != Infinity also, yet they are the same because Infinite. Infinity is beyond our rational mind, but it makes sense. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Dodo

[TheAvatarState]

@Dodo yes that was your core assumption, let me prove it to you. 

Let me rewrite the equation based off your own words. 

X-awareness = no existence

X =no existence + awareness

So whatever you are, X, the only thing that defines your existence is awareness. I was pointing to the fact that awareness is not a thing. You can't point to it. So according to your equation, the only thing that defines your existence is something that doesn't exist! Mindfuck! 

Another thing to consider is that if the word you're using isn't pointing to a concrete, numerical thing or set of things, then equations mean nothing. Equations are only useful in the realm of math and science. Also, the variables you used are all qualitatively different. Awareness is a qualitatively different concept than nothing or nonexistence, so how can you expect to get a meaningful result for X? 

For instance, imagine if physicists just wrote GRAVITY in their equations. Do you think they'd get anything meaningful from them? Probably not, instead they use the relative gravitational constant "g" that equals 9.8m/s^2. Of course if they go to the moon, the astronauts have to use a much lower g=1.62m/s^2. Scientists still don't know what GRAVITY is, but they can calculate g with relative accuracy and get meaningful results. G is not equal to GRAVITY, I guess you could say it's the quantifiable physical manifestation of the effect we know as gravity. 

So let me ask you something. We have this thing called AWARENESS and NOTHING (NONEXISTENCE), so is there a way to quantify these aspects in a way that could fit in an equation? What could be the "a" constant that represents awareness? Is this even possible (honestly I don't know)? I really like your ideas, I think this deserves more thought and attention. 

 

[Dodo]

15 minutes ago, TheAvatarState said:

@Dodo yes that was your core assumption, let me prove it to you. 

Let me rewrite the equation based off your own words. 

X-awareness = no existence

X =no existence + awareness

So whatever you are, X, the only thing that defines your existence is awareness. I was pointing to the fact that awareness is not a thing. You can't point to it. So according to your equation, the only thing that defines your existence is something that doesn't exist! Mindfuck! 

Another thing to consider is that if the word you're using isn't pointing to a concrete, numerical thing or set of things, then equations mean nothing. Equations are only useful in the realm of math and science. Also, the variables you used are all qualitatively different. Awareness is a qualitatively different concept than nothing or nonexistence, so how can you expect to get a meaningful result for X? 

For instance, imagine if physicists just wrote GRAVITY in their equations. Do you think they'd get anything meaningful from them? Probably not, instead they use the relative gravitational constant "g" that equals 9.8m/s^2. Of course if they go to the moon, the astronauts have to use a much lower g=1.62m/s^2. Scientists still don't know what GRAVITY is, but they can calculate g with relative accuracy and get meaningful results. G is not equal to GRAVITY, I guess you could say it's the quantifiable physical manifestation of the effect we know as gravity. 

So let me ask you something. We have this thing called AWARENESS and NOTHING (NONEXISTENCE), so is there a way to quantify these aspects in a way that could fit in an equation? What could be the "a" constant that represents awareness? Is this even possible (honestly I don't know)? I really like your ideas, I think this deserves more thought and attention. 

 

You are complicating simple things. 

Is it correct or is it not correct, that without awareness you do not exist? I am not asking you to point me to the awareness or to objectify or explain me what it is. The no self cannot be looked at as an object, yet it exists.

I do not expect this equation to be in the math books any time soon, for me it is simply something that can be used by the logical side of the mind to get in touch with what the True self already knows. Spiritual Math TM, Union between Ego and Truth. 
 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Dodo

[TheAvatarState]

56 minutes ago, Dodo said:

You are complicating simple things. 

Is it correct or is it not correct, that without awareness you do not exist? I am not asking you to point me to the awareness or to objectify or explain me what it is. The no self cannot be looked at as an object, yet it exists.

I do not expect this equation to be in the math books any time soon, for me it is simply something that can be used by the logical side of the mind to get in touch with what the True self already knows. Spiritual Math TM, Union between Ego and Truth. 
 

Equations are concepts that are inherent to science and logic. So you need to play by the same rules, play the game so to speak if you want to use equations to mean anything. If you want to keep things ultra simplistic, that's fine, but don't try to use an equation to prove a point because it's complete nonsense. You're trying to use a ruler to measure consciousness, it just doesn't compute. It may seem like it conveniently fits on the surface, but what are you really saying here? I'd actually like you to question what you're saying here because it deserves way more thought and attention. 

[Dodo]

21 minutes ago, TheAvatarState said:

Equations are concepts that are inherent to science and logic. So you need to play by the same rules, play the game so to speak if you want to use equations to mean anything. If you want to keep things ultra simplistic, that's fine, but don't try to use an equation to prove a point because it's complete nonsense. You're trying to use a ruler to measure consciousness, it just doesn't compute. It may seem like it conveniently fits on the surface, but what are you really saying here? I'd actually like you to question what you're saying here because it deserves way more thought and attention. 

The equation was inspired by something Rupert Spira said. It is basically translating what he said with a more mathematical framework. Nothing more. If you hear him say basically the same thing in other words you would be buying it! Sometimes it's the messenger. I don't see why you don't see the validity of the statement. It makes sense to me. 

 Watch the video that inspired this and see if it makes sense.  You may start on minute 10, at minute 11 he starts talking about removing existence from things, which is where my equation got inspired from.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Dodo

[lmfao]

6 hours ago, Dodo said:

I understand what you are saying, but the thing is the only shared element around all those objects that you are mentioning is the Awareness. Without Awareness there is no Brain. Without Awareness there is no Heart. So Brain and Heart are not essential to me. 

What you are using for the Heart and Brain equations is using assumptions that without a heart and without a brain you cannot exist. This is a belief and not a fact as it is about awareness. 

Since it is not a fact, you cannot use it in the equation! X-brain = nothing is not a proven fact, while X-awareness = nothing IS a proven fact - proven in our experience. 

@DodoYour first equation "X - Awareness = Nothing (If I am not aware, I do not exist)" was constructed with the premise that everything about a human is nested within awareness, and you used that premise to then justify your premise. Nothings wrong with that, but you haven't gotten anywhere by using maths since you're using an axiom to verify the validity of that very axiom. It's circular logic. Everything is indeed nested within consciousness, but you're not going to illuminate that by using maths.

But now we enter a semantic game. Is everything "awareness"? What does that word even mean? Or is reality just BANG BANG SPLISH SPLOSH WEEEEEEEEE WOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

 

[Dodo]

1 minute ago, lmfao said:

@DodoYour first equation "X - Awareness = Nothing (If I am not aware, I do not exist)" was constructed with the premise that everything about a human is nested within awareness, and you used that premise to then justify your premise. Nothings wrong with that, but you haven't gotten anywhere by using maths since you're using an axiom to verify the validity of that very axiom. It's circular logic. Everything is indeed nested within consciousness, but you're not going to illuminate that by using maths.

But now we enter a semantic game. Is everything "awareness"? What does that word even mean? Or is reality just BANG BANG SPLISH SPLOSH WEEEEEEEEE WOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

 

no I do not see your objection as correct. I did not use any axioms. I am using the facts of my experience. I am not even claiming to be the human. Whatever I am, (that's why I used X), I cannot be it, without being aware. If I use things OUTSIDE of awareness, then you can claim that I am making projections and premises. 

[Dodo]

@lmfao

Try to counter that. In what way is it possible for me to exist without being aware. I await your kind response. I do want someone to try to prove this wrong, this is the scientific method! Go

And if it is true, that if I am not aware, I do not exist - then this very sentence translates into the mathematically framed equation
Me - Awareness = 0 (0 being a symbol for nothing, but I know many people here are allergic to that symbol, so I used nothing in original post) 
I did not make any projections and did not include any pre-assumptions in this equation. It is just a translation of the sentence - If I am not aware, I do not exist - which is a fact.

Notice that in this equation Awareness doesn't have to be defined specifically, it is in your own experience though, this is what self inquiry can help with. You do have experience of Awareness, and that is perhaps one of the few "things" we can be certain of that exist. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Dodo

[TheAvatarState]

@Dodo thanks for sharing! I love Rupert Spira. 

There were some key differences between what he said and what you said, and he didn't bother putting it in an equation for the reasons I said above. First of all, he provided the nondual context in his words, and he recognizes that what you are IS awareness. The idea of there being an x or "nothing" relating to mathematical zero is already out of the question. Second, and this is what I liked, he went further to say that awareness/consciousness is neither limited nor unlimited, because the act of looking itself creates more! Ta-da! Strange loop. He also conceded that this is something way outside the bounds of concept, logic, or science to grasp. 

[Highest]

X - you don’t exist

y - Awarness exist and is aware of itself

Conclusion or = : Only awarness exists

ta-da!

Much simplier?

[non_nothing]

hahah my ass

your ignorance level on mathematics made my day. 

[Highest]

Btw mathematics is a human invention. Horse shit. It can never ‘’prove’’ that you are awarness or make you conscious of it. 

 

[Dodo]

2 hours ago, non_nothing said:

hahah my ass

your ignorance level on mathematics made my day. 

yeah yeah, how many math competitions did you win in your day then? 

[Dodo]

1 hour ago, Highest said:

Btw mathematics is a human invention. Horse shit. It can never ‘’prove’’ that you are awarness or make you conscious of it. 

 

So is the language you are using to communicate your disgust. 

Maths, as the English language, is a way of communicating. Maths is a much higher language than English or any other language with words. 

Maths/Music and silence are the languages of God. 

Many will disregard the simplicity of my post, it is true until anyone here can debunk it. That's why I love Maths, it is about what is True, no matter whether you and I like it or not. 

TTYL 

 

PS: This equation, just like any other non-dual truth should be used as a pointer, you should know that by now. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Dodo