GENIUS FORUMS

Christ, yeah, up my meds and call me Steven Coyle!

dejavu wrote:prince, how can "god" have created the universe when
there is nothing outside the universe, nothing outside of infinity. "Instructed" !? lol Influenced only.

Instructed, influenced same thing.

God is infinite, has always been around, knows everything, so it's a piece of cake for God to construct a Universe inside itself, and equally easy to make itself obscure from the view of the human. His marks are everywhere though, if you pay attention. Your eye is not an accident, its a structured mechanism.

dejavu wrote: Stop kidding yourself.

You are kidding yourself if you think that infinity does not comprise at the highest level of a supreme all-powerful consciousness. It simply can not be any other way.

prince wrote:

dejavu wrote:prince, how can "god" have created the universe when
there is nothing outside the universe, nothing outside of infinity. "Instructed" !? lol Influenced only.

Instructed, influenced same thing.

God is infinite, has always been around, knows everything, so it's a piece of cake for God to construct a Universe inside itself, and equally easy to make itself obscure from the view of the human. His marks are everywhere though, if you pay attention. Your eye is not an accident, its a structured mechanism.

dejavu wrote: Stop kidding yourself.

You are kidding yourself if you think that infinity does not comprise at the highest level of a supreme all-powerful consciousness. It simply can not be any other way.

Prince, that seems abit blurry..to me anyway. 'infinity comprised at the highest level of supreme all powerful consciousness.'

You mean the infinite is comprised of consciousness?

you can't be conscious of the infinite. Also, the infinite can't be conscious of anything. God, as in infinite, is not really conscious, but is neccesarily still the source of any consciousness



i

Well let me explain it this way.

God is a being, has parameters but is nevertheless immortal, because God is all there is. He is able to infinitely create dimensions that have the illusion of time and space. Humans are one of his creations, with the capacity to understand what he is, in a very limited, but nevertheless valid way.

There is no beginning or end to God because he is the source of all energy, and is altogether outside of time and space.

All else of the universe flows from this power, in a trickle down fashion.

It would be kind to say you don't understand the relationship between space and time, because they are actually one and the same.

Space is time, time is space.

Anders Schlander wrote:Great, our entire lives are made of hexagons. Perhaps not as meaningful to me as it is to you.

All of these ideas are exciting enough at the surface, but when you really try and discern any ultimate explanation there doesn't appear to be any.
Cause and Effect already trancends hexagons as an explanation because without there would be no case of hexagons. otherwise, you couldn't spot any of the hexagons, they wouldn't influence anything, and they wouldn't have any sense of order or similarities everywhere. there would instead perhaps be loads of different shapes instead of just one type ( hexagon ) and we wouldn't all be able to look at them! the universe does seem to have a function...

But it's not bringing us closer to explaining what made hexagons, what there was before them, what initiated that kind of formation, etc. The universe is 'driven' by neccesity. and with these supposed hexagons, i wonder what neccesarily happens. Well, nothing we don't already seem to know. In fact, everything infront of us is already here. I just wonder what can practically be gotten from any of these theories. Science must go throuhg an awful lot of garbage in order to find a treasure.

Cause, and Effect are words, they are not physical. they have to be changed to something physical for them to work. So they don't really appear until man learns them as words, which is only about maybe 500 years ago. Like You can change them to The Big Bang caused matter to fly through the Universe. But the words Cause / Effect have been changed. So you could just say.. The was a Big Bang, and then ignore the words altogether.




A = 1
B = 2


It's like you are saying that A + B existed before 3.

Anyway I did say what created the Hexagons. Equal forces on all sides. The pressure of them being packed together tightly.

prince wrote: You are kidding yourself if you think that infinity does not comprise at the highest level of a supreme all-powerful consciousness. It simply can not be any other way.

Let me first state that I am not averse to this possibility, but I'm habitually inquisitive and I have some thoughts.

Let us operate on the assumption that causation is ultimately true. Regardless of whatever physical form a thing appears as the underlying truth is in its causal relation.

This is at least a premise likely to be accepted on these forums, I doubt anyone can deny it. It is also a widely held assumption that conscious content are forms as well even if they appear as aspects of the observer. As a consequence consciousness itself is defined by its causal relations and not its appearances. So then let's rebuke all forms and speak only of causation. We need to explain consciousness and intelligence in those terms. I will of course have to use letters as symbols.

First a thing is generally regarded as originating from another thing (i.e. causation). It can be said that a thing acquires its identity from antecedents (one or more things prior). This is basic causation. It is my view that this transfer of identity is consciousness. The reason for this is that in a strictly causally oriented view it cannot be any other way. Consciousness is not a physical thing, its a virtual thing originating from causal integration.

However, one thing acquiring its identity from one or more other things does not constitute and ego-centric perspective on reality. There is much more required to bridge the gap between simple causal relations to ego-based integration in simulated world model.

As regards infinity, this raises an interesting question. If infinity is maximally integrated causation then there is probability of some funky conscious phenomena. However, it could not have a center and simultaneously be infinite. This also supposes that "infinity" can be described causally. In terms of "infinite peanuts" it is still subject to causal description, however infinity can also be defined as utterly boundless--in other words not finite, not limited. In this sense it could not be described causally and would necessarily encompass all possible worlds.

A third scenario suggests "in the beginning" there was a truly boundless reality (e.g. God) which limited itself in process of creation, in the act of manifesting reality. Whether or not there was any choice in the matter is speculation. I submit perhaps there was no choice what is is inevitable. This is because existence would require a subject-object system, a pseudo-object designed to incorporated subject-object relations while perceiving itself as a real thing. This would be necessary for any extant reality, all possible realities not containing subject-object systems would effectively not exist.

In order to have a reality with subject-object relations their needs to be laws holding it all in place and determining the relations. There can be no subject in a reality that is incoherent to the subject. There needs to be correlation between the fundamental laws of the subject and the objects--the subject is just a pseudo-object.

Animus wrote:In order to have a reality with subject-object relations their needs to be laws holding it all in place and determining the relations. There can be no subject in a reality that is incoherent to the subject.

Well that's self-evident isn't it. You are proving so right now.

prince wrote:

Animus wrote:In order to have a reality with subject-object relations their needs to be laws holding it all in place and determining the relations. There can be no subject in a reality that is incoherent to the subject.

Well that's self-evident isn't it. You are proving so right now.

I think it a good habit to ground theories in axioms. Free-floating theories are troublesome.

It's not so important to concern yourself with theories. This is philosophical child play.

Everything is known by God, a little is known by you.

He takes the most wonderful delight in you discovering what he so effortlessly can make. Just as a parent to a child.

prince wrote:It's not so important to concern yourself with theories. This is philosophical child play.

Everything is known by God, a little is known by you.

He takes the most wonderful delight in you discovering what he so effortlessly can make. Just as a parent to a child.

I don't know everything. Its not that simple for me. I'm making no claims to omniscience, are you?

dejavu wrote:This is now a case for Animus. Animus, which section of princes brain is likely to be causing these abberations of reasoning?

You really would do well to dispense this kind of ugliness from your mind.

You are an unhappy person dejavu, and you know it.

dejavu wrote:

prince: It's not so important to concern yourself with theories. This is philosophical child play.

Yet you indulge in it, none too philosophically either:

Everything is known by God, a little is known by you. He takes the most wonderful delight in you discovering what he so effortlessly can make. Just as a parent to a child.

This is now a case for Animus. Animus, which section of princes brain is likely to be causing these abberations of reasoning?

At this venture its probably more useful to describe it on a functional-level of analysis. The subject-object system is on the subject side empty, it stands in relation to other objects. The idea that a person is empty works adequately. The notion that they need to grasp for existence works here. Functionally the self is projecting its relations (emotions, percepts, etc...) onto a perceived subject (God) and believing this to be an epistemic subject-subject relation. The perceived subject is to greater or lesser degree accurate in what it describes (emptiness), except that it has all the object relations of the original self. Like an imaginary friend that shares many qualities of the individual and provides for them an illusion of substantiation. A way of grounding their self model in reality, falsely however. I could only speculate wildly on how this is represented in the brain. There is probably a diffuse set of representations across many domains. There is going to be a variable degree of presence associated within the the God metarepresentation which will correlate with temporal lobes, but emotional activation will likely occur across the limbic system and inhibition of the pareital lobes might make the original self model appear more opaque. In other words the person might feel a loss or dimming of self. Pretty much all of our experiences are distributed across the brain, making functional analysis on the level of metarepresentations pretty convenient.

Basically, I submit that the subject in question fears the God he supposedly worships and worships an image of a God he's constructed to look like him. The real God he supposedly worships is to be found in the emptiness of his soul and not his place in the world. But he wields his God's name as a defensive mechanism for his ignorance and fear of the truth. Committing the very sins he claims to uphold. He thinks himself crafty with his egoic side remarks and evasion of truth. Ultimately, he's playing games with himself.

But that's just what it looks like from my point-of-view and I reserve judgement on the matter. There are possibly elements of my own ego embedded in my analysis which I'm in denial of. Like the fact that I took this opportunity.

Colossians 2

18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

I should add to qualify the above analysis that the mind/brain seeks coherence, its necessary for consciousness. If there is conflicting representations they have to cohere. For example phantom limb patients feel a limb that has been amputated and frequently forget that they have lost their limb when they aren't looking at where it used to be. In the absence of the visual stimuli the brain/mind assumes the limb is there. When the person looks at where the limb is supposed to be the brain/mind adjusts its representation. The need to ground the self in reality is probably cognitively unavailable to the subject at this point. The subject may only be aware of the conviction.

Pincho wrote:What I am actually looking for is the invisible structure that surrounds an atom, but as a fractal it will show up enlarged in the universe like my pictures.

Here it is. ;-)
















http://www.theresonanceproject.org/research.html
(Done with editing. :-P)

dejavu wrote:

Awwww, I was thinking of treating you, but a trick seemed to stick.

Well, it is true, sometimes I'm unhappy, but not today. Embarrassing, but there you have it.

Can't god fix it though? Won't he take a wonderful delight in it?

He might, but probably not. I don't know, he is more forgiving than I can imagine.

How much gratitude have you shown him?

If you make a prayer to God, and thank him for what he has given you, who knows...

You are lost, I understand that. I have been there brother, believe me.

Just ask God for help. Little steps. You have pushed God away for so long that he is a little shy, God is a perfect Gentleman!

He even accepts little god-denying dickweasels like you dejavu. Smug little pricks that use a revolting shot of an ugly eye as an avatar. Smug little pricks that think they are king shit, but actually feel like king dog-shit inside.

Smug little jerks, like you. God forgives.

Pincho Paxton wrote:For many years I have been studying the structure of the Aether, and Dark Matter (Which I believe are the same thing). And for many years have come up with a hexagon shaped structure similar to Snowflakes. With a Aether made from Hexagons you get many fractals naturally, because hexagons produce fractals when linked together. Anyway.. I took a look at some threads back a few pages, and found this picture (I added a hexagon grid to it). I could see my hexagon structure in it, with a bit of lens distortion (or universe spherical inversion). I tried to correct the distortion.. I got close I think, and ended up with this....



I find that the lines in the image closely match the hexagon grid. I think that the grid can be tweaked a bit more. Strangely.. the grid is distorted close to centre, I put this down to lense distortion, however.. I suppose if you look outwards from the centre of any hexagon shaped hive, you will always get a sort of fractal sphere.

Anyway, you can do this with almost anything, and it will turn out to match the shape. Like tree branches for example, and even the human body.

The universe is far from hexagonal it would be a strand of strandlessness with walls of intertia. the universe has no form of geometracy about it is full of completing isotopes which have no geometric form.

the only shape the universe that reacurs is sphereism but for a reason. a sphere represents the the one commonality in this universe. that is completion curvature or the dualism of particulate(particles). the never reacurring path of ressonance in space. a particle will always come back to where it started in essence complete cohesion of itself.

our universe is temporary but the particles themselves arent. the basic building blocks of matter. it just completley reforms every eon = about 100 trillion years on average = every convergence cycle of cohesion. the never ending completion of particulates in the envirnment of everything. the eternity paradox.

Sonata wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:For many years I have been studying the structure of the Aether, and Dark Matter (Which I believe are the same thing). And for many years have come up with a hexagon shaped structure similar to Snowflakes. With a Aether made from Hexagons you get many fractals naturally, because hexagons produce fractals when linked together. Anyway.. I took a look at some threads back a few pages, and found this picture (I added a hexagon grid to it). I could see my hexagon structure in it, with a bit of lens distortion (or universe spherical inversion). I tried to correct the distortion.. I got close I think, and ended up with this....



I find that the lines in the image closely match the hexagon grid. I think that the grid can be tweaked a bit more. Strangely.. the grid is distorted close to centre, I put this down to lense distortion, however.. I suppose if you look outwards from the centre of any hexagon shaped hive, you will always get a sort of fractal sphere.

Anyway, you can do this with almost anything, and it will turn out to match the shape. Like tree branches for example, and even the human body.

The universe is far from hexagonal it would be a strand of strandlessness with walls of intertia. the universe has no form of geometracy about it is full of completing isotopes which have no geometric form.

the only shape the universe that reacurs is sphereism but for a reason. a sphere represents the the one commonality in this universe. that is completion curvature or the dualism of particulate(particles). the never reacurring path of ressonance in space. a particle will always come back to where it started in essence complete cohesion of itself.

So you don't think that its strange for the lines to follow the hexagons then? Because Spheres don't fit together, they leave gaps in the corners, and you can't have gaps in the universe. The vacuum can't be a gap in the universe it has to contain something else around every sphere there would be a black hole in the corners.. well triangular shaped Black Holes to be precise. It must be Hexagons to work with atoms too, because the only other shape that works is triangles. Triangles don't have equal forces though. But the centres of the Hexagons contain segments like an orange for the Electron, so that is a sort of triangle I guess.

I don't see why you posted the pictures? Apart from the only one that works in those examples is the hexagon rainbow one.

Pincho Paxton wrote:I don't see why you posted the pictures?Apart from the only one that works in those examples is the hexagon rainbow one.

You are welcome.
Pictures are for reference on how it works.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... oscope.JPG
http://www.blueberry-brain.org/winterch ... attern.gif
http://www.mkbergman.com/wp-content/the ... 115_e8.png

Here again is the research papers for you to read as well.

E8 - Garret Lisi
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/071 ... 0770v1.pdf
Scaling law - Nassim Haramein
http://www.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/ ... _paper.pdf

That was my old model about 4 years ago. That's how I started. But there is nowhere for the Photons to travel without some major course changes. It is also way too complex to fill every expanse of even a few metres, let alone the universe. It would require it's own DNA so that brings God back into it. It doesn't work.

Pincho Paxton wrote:That was my old model about 4 years ago. That's how I started. But there is nowhere for the Photons to travel without some major course changes. It is also way too complex to fill every expanse of even a few metres, let alone the universe. It would require it's own DNA so that brings God back into it. It doesn't work.

There are no such thing as photons. You are confused.
Read the paper. :-P