Theory: Duality arises by necessity when multiple experiences exist

[RMQualtrough]

Simply, say there exists two experiences X and Y... When there is "experience of X", it concurrently creates the "experience of NOT being Y".

When there exists "the experience of my self", that comes with the "experience of NOT being your self"...

Take two hard drives on a computer. Drives only store data pertaining to themselves. The electricity running through the system (metaphor for awareness) experiences both drives simultaneously.

When hard drive 1 exists like this, two things are generated: "being hard drive 1" and "NOT being hard drive 2". Even though the electricity is experiencing both drives at once, if the drives were somehow knowledgeable of each other's existence, then because the drives only store its own information and not the information stored on the other drive, it would create a sense of separation/self: "Experience of hard drive one" comes with a sense of individuality by necessity...

[Tim R]

1 hour ago, RMQualtrough said:

say there exists two experiences X and Y

Show me "two experiences". There is no such thing. Whatever there is, is. And there cannot be "two". Being doesn't exist as "two". There are no two "is". "Multiplicity" is not the same as "separation". Because truly, nothing can be separated from anything else, or it wouldn't be. 

Everything = Everything

You can't have anything but everything. All words create the appearance of there being something. "Something" is seeming division from "itself". 

1 hour ago, RMQualtrough said:

When hard drive 1 exists like this, two things are generated: "being hard drive 1" and "NOT being hard drive 2". Even though the electricity is experiencing both drives at once, if the drives were somehow knowledgeable of each other's existence, then because the drives only store its own information and not the information stored on the other drive, it would create a sense of separation/self: "Experience of hard drive one" comes with a sense of individuality by necessity...

Exactly. Nice analogy.

There wouldn't be the necessity for HD one to experience HD two, if they were identical. But because identity of two things already excludes there being two things, there is only one experience, seeming to divide itself into many. 

There is only consciousness, but no one who is conscious. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Tim R

[Windappreciator]

1 hour ago, RMQualtrough said:

Simply, say there exists two experiences X and Y... When there is "experience of X", it concurrently creates the "experience of NOT being Y".

Here is the thing. You don't need to have Y here, being X automatically creates !X. When we say: "We have X and Y", we don't necessarily mean that  Y = !X, but rather, Y itself is it's own duality creator. It's important to see that being X does create "not-being-Y"  but it also is not Y and neither is "not-X" the same as "not-Y" or Y.

So if X creates !X, Y creates !Y, however !X != !Y what this means is that you can have 2 dualities in a linear fashion, saying I am X from which follows !X and then imagine X and !X collapses into 0 and you become Y and therefore !Y and then with the use of time and memory you can construct a sequence of : I am X and !X at time 1, I am Y and !Y at time 2, I am Z and !Z at time 3 and so on.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Windappreciator

[VeganAwake]

Watch 45:40 - 50:40 ❤

 

[BipolarGrowth]

1 minute ago, VeganAwake said:

Watch 45:40 - 50:40 ❤

 

Love this movie. Can’t wait for #3

[The0Self]

Experience = “What would it be like if it were possible that I am real?”

[RMQualtrough]

3 hours ago, Windappreciator said:

Here is the thing. You don't need to have Y here, being X automatically creates !X. When we say: "We have X and Y", we don't necessarily mean that  Y = !X, but rather, Y itself is it's own duality creator. It's important to see that being X does create "not-being-Y"  but it also is not Y and neither is "not-X" the same as "not-Y" or Y.

So if X creates !X, Y creates !Y, however !X != !Y what this means is that you can have 2 dualities in a linear fashion, saying I am X from which follows !X and then imagine X and !X collapses into 0 and you become Y and therefore !Y and then with the use of time and memory you can construct a sequence of : I am X and !X at time 1, I am Y and !Y at time 2, I am Z and !Z at time 3 and so on.

Hm. If X existed alone, there'd not be anything else which could be perceived as other. It would be more of a hypothetical other? But with apparent selves we have something to contrast against and say: "Hey, here is me and there is that other thing which exists which is not me".

Within our own minds too. If we identified with each emotion individually (like each is a different ego) we might say "I am happy. Over there is sadness and I am not that." But if only happy existed there'd be no "sad" to point at and say "look, there's something different from me!"

So I think perhaps the real duality begins when a singularity contains multiple different things like red and blue for example.

Otherwise the proposed duality is only a hypothetical, like existence creating "not NON-existence". But there is no non-existence to locate and feel different from.

[vladorion]

Multiple experiences don't require duality if it is known that it is the same essence unfolding as multiplicity.

The experience of duality happens when experiences are believed to have their own existence.

[RMQualtrough]

18 minutes ago, vladorion said:

Multiple experiences don't require duality if it is known that it is the same essence unfolding as multiplicity.

The experience of duality happens when experiences are believed to have their own existence.

Doesn't require it, creates the sense of it, and does so necessarily. If you know I exist here on the other side of the screen, but your ego can't telepathically read my mind, then there is the sense of duality. There is the sense of "I am on this end typing, and there is another on the other side of the world reading."

Even if you know it is all "I", your ego self still cannot read my mind and so there is that "this is me, that is NOT me" split.

It is like, there is not individuation because the "I" is different, there is individuation because the experience of individuation comes WITH "being self" by necessity. Like electricity running through two hard drives. Part of the experience of being yourself is the experience of being "NOT other"...

So when people think "why am I confined to always being in this self?", it is because that exact sensation is part OF the "experience of you". In actual fact what you call "I" IS experiencing all life simultaneously, but your egoic self comes with that "I'm stuck here" setup by necessity, because the ego self is a hard drive not the electrical current.

You can break the sense of duality ofc. Uhm. I know what I want to say but the technicalities are annoyingly precise and hard to navigate.

Edited May 24, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[lmfao]

@RMQualtrough Xᶜ ∪ X = U , X=¬¬X . But also, ∅ ∈ A , ∀A that exist. [Where the logic fails is when you realise ∅=U, A=∅, etc]. 

That logic is simple enough, understanding and seeing it directly is something else though.

It seems you're trying to catch the moment the duality arises. All logic symbols =, ⇒,⇔,¬, take 0 time to work, it's instantaneous

Which is why straining the mind to catch these things is so hard. The very moment you start saying your sentence, you're alrea-

Edited May 24, 2021 by lmfao

[RMQualtrough]

@lmfao With consciousness being outside of time, it must have all existed at T=0, infinity years elapse instantly, all existence at once. So duality must have arisen at T=0.

But this is I think the mechanism behind why that has to happen? The hard drives are the best analogy. When experiencing hard drive one, if it knows hard drive two exists (we are envisioning these to be sentient lol), then "experience of hard drive one" ENTAILS "not being hard drive two", it's part and parcel with the experience. Hence "why am I always in this body and returning to it, why don't I have the ability to possess other people and read their mind at will?" Well because you are trying to take the hard drive you and stick it into the other. It does not work that way. Only "I" (electricity here) can experience both things and in fact is.

Edited May 24, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[lmfao]

@RMQualtrough Since t=0, that should bring into question how one holds causality I've found. Paying attention to present, time and being, etc. Very whacky stuff

20 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Hence "why am I always in this body and returning to it, why don't I have the ability to possess other people and read their mind at will?" Well because you are trying to take the hard drive you and stick it into the other. It does not work that way. Only "I" (electricity here) can experience both things and in fact is.

Alright so you're bringing up the topic of other people's minds.
_ _ 
I don't think your analogy explains the "why" of anything, but that's not an insult to your analogy particularly. It's just how they all are 

Edited May 24, 2021 by lmfao

[Windappreciator]

hm, I think if were to avoid confusion around stuff like plainly having blue and not blue from which you could conclude it automatically generates the rest of colors, meaning if I am god and I give rise to blue and not blue, but not blue means yellow and yellow means not yellow, but not yellow means green and green means not green, but not green means blue and blue means not blue and then not blue means yellow again and so on(*), which I think is a rather beautiful loop, we could introduce meta structures in which these are nested.

1. We have started with one duality from which all the others automatically expanded out explosively and it doesn't matter with which one to start, because by starting any one is like starting with any other.

2. We introduce meta dualisties. For example, let's start with the notion color and not color, we are biased towards color so we zoom into color and we find blue and not blue and hence apply 1. within that frame of color and we get (*).

3. we repeat 2. for a meta duality and then apply 1. if we zoom in.

 

the visual representation for this process would then be fractals.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Windappreciator

[RMQualtrough]

50 minutes ago, lmfao said:

@RMQualtrough Since t=0, that should bring into question how one holds causality I've found. Paying attention to present, time and being, etc. Very whacky stuff

Alright so you're bringing up the topic of other people's minds.
_ _ 
I don't think your analogy explains the "why" of anything, but that's not an insult to your analogy particularly. It's just how they all are 

Indeed, by "why" I meant it more in the sense of "how".

Imagine momentarily that there is no such thing as consciousness, but there are brains. Your brain contains only information relating to "lmfao" (your username not the expression lol). It is inscribed into it that MY brain exists, and that it (your brain) is NOT my brain.

Now when you run consciousness through it, the NOT being my brain is literally encoded into the experience of being "your brain". Telepathy etc should not be possible because it requires that you take some element of the lower self and enter another mind, and somehow bring something back.

The supreme self is already in both minds at the same time, but memories etc. are only recorded for each "individual" brain, you see? Like hard drives only store data that is placed on the drive. Drive 1 has no clue what is on drive 2. Your brain has no idea what is going on in my brain when you look at me. But "I" (/electricity for the drives) IS in both.

Edited May 24, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[RMQualtrough]

44 minutes ago, Windappreciator said:

hm, I think if were to avoid confusion around stuff like plainly having blue and not blue from which you could conclude it automatically generates the rest of colors, meaning if I am god and I give rise to blue and not blue, but not blue means yellow and yellow means not yellow, but not yellow means green and green means not green, but not green means blue and blue means not blue and then not blue means yellow again and so on(*), which I think is a rather beautiful loop, we could introduce meta structures in which these are nested.

1. We have started with one duality from which all the others automatically expanded out explosively and it doesn't matter with which one to start, because by starting any one is like starting with any other.

2. We introduce meta dualisties. For example, let's start with the notion color and not color, we are biased towards color so we zoom into color and we find blue and not blue and hence apply 1. within that frame of color and we get (*).

3. we repeat 2. for a meta duality and then apply 1. if we zoom in.

 

the visual representation for this process would then be fractals.

The only thing I'm wondering, is if blue exists, does not-blue HAVE to exist? I suppose in infinity the answer is yes if not-blue is possible. Though in infinity every color comes about naturally and not by force from the existence of blue.

I think it would only work with absolute binaries. Like existence and non-existence. Non-existence does not exist in this case, but there may be others.

[lmfao]

7 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

Indeed, by "why" I meant it more in the sense of "how".

Imagine momentarily that there is no such thing as consciousness, but there are brains. Your brain contains only information relating to "lmfao" (your username not the expression lol). It is inscribed into it that MY brain exists, and that it (your brain) is NOT my brain.

Now when you run consciousness through it, the NOT being my brain is literally encoded into the experience of being "your brain". 

This makes sense to me, everything after is drivel. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by lmfao