0 = 1. Why we are more than ourselves.

reply to post by Ben81


I love the bruce lee vid, he's so awesome.

I want to say you're very close to what I'm getting at, but one main difference. What I'm describing, isn't a metaphor. It's a physical relation. It only seems like a metaphor, because that's the only way I know how to describe it. I'm not saying we're part of some giant martix, I'm saying that just as nothing is still something, our bodies are more than just the bodies. WE have thought and connections and many other intangible devices that connect us to this world. Those bonds we share don't quite explain life, but they account for something even though they are not physical.

It's a very hard topic to explain without sounding like I just took a pill. This is a very real and noticeable occurrence that so far, we've been unable to explain, Why? So this is my first attempt.

beautiful thread and so much to consider. love the math. math is a language of interpretation, like all language. it is limited by its users abilities to understand both it's wonderful traits but also its limits. much like the concept of time, they don't really exist other than for us to use as mind tools.

i've written a ton on mind/body creation machine (vs. the belief machine we're taught), so i won't babble here.

individual human life can be described as an observer/experiencer. this observer/experiencer (OE), is 0=1 and represents creation. 1 from 0. the parents provide a basic instruction set, operating system & bio-creation machine with certain starting traits. otherwise it might as well come out as jelly or a pine cone. this 1 from 0 explains the creation process we participate in every day. we start with thought. starting point is zero. thought is the one. a manifestation out of the ether. either from an observance, an experience, a pondering, a trial or joy, these things shape our thoughts. belief plays an even greater role unfortunately and is the reason humanity is a stagnant pool. as future generations are taught how to use their creation machines, society will gravitate to a more holistic & peaceful way. as long as ego drives the ship, WYSIWYG. the thing is there is no going back. once an individual discovers the mirror and learns to subdue ego and allow the observer to consciously run things, it is knowledge that can't be unlearned. it's too profound. it's life changing.

life is the OE, arrives here but is not taught how to use the machine correctly. say only the reverse gear. but the seeker can discover the mirrors of life and learn to quiet the mind. the OE can understand the hijack that has been taken place and the denial of service attack that has been going on in their computer minds 24/7 since birth. this awareness allows for a deletion of old programming and consciously written & uploaded newer, better programs. the OE discovers there are more gears on the machine and starts to try going around in a forward gear. all the others in reverse start yelling, "hey--you can't do that. we have laws." yet there you go trying to teach these pigs to sing. only when they decide to allow for the open mind of the creation process to start to work will they be able to get their heads around those who defy physics.

the OE can of course live a completely satisfied life given nearly any condition. the alternative is always there (suicide), but most choose life, even of misery, rather than face the spooky death we're taught to fear. death is merely the end point of the OE's experience in that machine. the machine at this time is destined to fail. i hypothesize that a creation machine that is taught to use the belief/intent mechanism properly can literally do what we consider impossible. belief is the great trojan horse introduced to the machine that has retarded its ability to understand and learn. rather we medicate, jail & kill the heretics, blasphemers & out-liers. but they are the real heroes often. and then we elect & worship the morons. we believe in this theater so we wire thoughts & emotions and the creation machine body says, "right on, we've got our instructions. line up the universe to carry it all out!! wooohooo!" and you're off on your life-long drama whip saw ride. the machine is designed to follow your instructions. glass half empty? guess what, so's your fleshed out life. stressed out about future worries or past regret? money issues that turn your hair grey? your machine is manifesting it all out in real time solely for your pleasure and enjoyment.

yes, i agree with the math. it allows for us to be able to open our minds to answer the question, "What is your own flat earth theory, that if given proof to the contrary, you would still hold as a belief?" mind fook that one right there. obliterates the mind to allow for 0=1. the mystery. the great question mark (which should be the symbol for "god" or creator or any other unknown).

we might even learn to worship the unknown--haha.

awesome thread op. some great insights there.

I just got done watching idiocracy (which I couldn't help but doing after seeing 'some' of the interactions to my thread), so I completely understand where you're coming from. Mind you I may have chosen different words, but you certainly explained yourself. It takes alot for people not to just learn, but to comprehend. Which is really what I think I'm trying to get people to do. Something can exist, yet it's not made into what it really is, until we see it for more than itself. I know that sounds confusing, and a little redundant, but the truth is, if we don't explore these concepts, if we don't strive to be something more, human's will slide down a slope that can't be undone. I feel like I got placed in a very good generation, but I know too that it will expire. Let old dynasties die, and educate the new ones before you become complacent.

I'm 50/50 on the experience of knowledge. It is a tool that helps but it also constrains us. The task we undertake as being sentient creatures is really a daunting task that leaves us looking to the sky asking for help, It twists my gut that I am unable to solve this, or even get remotely close, but I also know that if I never find the answer, I can still be happy. Love is about the only thing I have left at the moment. Possessions no longer interest me, I just want to have the roof over my head and food in my belly, and would like to support those ideas with out stressful interactions. Alas it is not practical to starve myself on the street with no one to care what words I utter. I go back to Mahatma Ghandi and say, "You must be the change you wish to see[]". And that's what I'm doing. I'm not asking for anything, just that I one day might help everyone, not just myself, take one small step forward. Ah.... ego.

Thanks for reading and replying so coherently.

reply to post by wishful1gnorance


Not on its own free will it can't

reply to post by wishful1gnorance


Yes i know what you mean there lol
we wont know until our cup is filled with water
no choice but to speak with metaphores until it really happen

reply to post by wishful1gnorance

+1 for effort. You've obviously put time into it, no matter whether you're right or not.

I won't go into the explicit math. The properties are familiar, but I'm not a high-math kind of guy.

But I can't agree that 0 = 1 just as I can't agree that 3 = 4.

However, if 0 is indefinable then who's to say it's not equal to 1?

(0,0,0) is a location in 3-dimensional space. So 0 can be something in relative terms. For example, on a range between -10 and +10, 0 can mean balanced. It can have a relative value.

-10 (extremely negative)... 0 (balanced)... +10 (extremely positive).

Kind of like how local order might exist in a larger sea of chaos. In reality, the local order is an illusion that's only supported by the limited awareness of the observer or onlooker. For example, you can pick out many sorts of shapes from random noise on a television screen. You can pick out shapes in the clouds, the waves, a patch of dirt, and many other places. The question that sometimes crosses my mind is Are we like clouds? Are we a localized order in a broader schemed chaos? Are we illusion? Are we just extremely complex random discrete/indiscrete numeric/non-numeric equations?

None of that means a whole lot.

Somehow, all of this reminds me of the nothing versus something argument before universe creation. What existed before the big bang? Was there ever nothing? Does something have to come from nothing? Is nothing really nothing if something can come from it? Is something really something if it came from nothing? And what about eternity? What does forever mean? How can you define forever unless you only define a small stretch of it and how can that not be a finite definition?

I've seen people use terms like forever/nothing/something/etc to make compelling arguments.

And you know...

If time travel is possible and the past and future can be interacted with then I believe we're in fact all connected. Far in the distant future life has mastered the universe and has attained time travel capability. This master organism or suite of organisms is super maximum intelligent and has scoured the entire timeline of this universe from beginning to end. It's God. It's everything. It never stopped evolving. It evolved to the very ends of time. IT exists everywhere at everytime.

Why would we not be able to traverse time as we traverse space? Why would there only be particles that traverse space and not particles that traverse time? We use tools to receive or reflect particles onto other spacial objects in order to see and interact with spacial matter(s), but how can we not use tools to receive or reflect particles onto other temporal objects in order to see and interact with temporal matter(s)? I understand that theory might prove it impossible, but that seems inconsistent.

reply to post by zonetripper2065


What about a motion sensor. Something occurs in the surrounding environment and it reacts on it's own.

reply to post by jonnywhite


I'm not going to answer all of your reply because some of what you're saying I don't follow or it doesn't explicitly relate. The thing I will focus on is, that just because you can't agree with it, doesn't make it the truth.

I stated I'm trying to avoid the math debate because it goes in circles. The result is undefined at least for now, and is a task I'm not capable of permanently solving, at least at this time. So I won't prove it here, but from what I can tell, you should go back and re-read what I've already stated. It may help clarify a few things. They are complex math tricks, that do work. But there are much higher methods of giving solid proof, with out using any tricks, I promise I'm not making that up, if I did it would only hurt my position. If you still don't believe, go ask any trig teacher to show a proof that 0 = 1 and they will confirm it.

And while this might not mean much at face value. It does say something quite profound about our universe, our lives and everything else for that matter. This is the section that is not finished, and will be elaborated upon. Maybe you can think about the things that seem like nothing in our lives, yet hold tremendous weight on our actions. When we see the reaction that takes place, we can better understand ourselves and the world around us.

As to the origins of the universe and the time travel stuff, I'm just going to say I'm not an astrophysicist so I don't know how to answer your questions without making stuff up, so I won't.

Proof 0 = 1

Tell me what this is ... 0
You could tell me nought, nothing, zero, null, O etc. But all of those are really.... One nought, one zero, one null, one 0.... i.e all of those are one.

1+1 = 1 = 0

How?

1 man + 1 woman = 1 couple and since we proved that 1=0 you could rephrase that as
0 men +0 women = 0 couples = 1 (what is the 1? well 0 of course)

If there was no woman and no other beings, no other things and no other thoughts then what would a man be?





:much love nice topic (I'm not very mathematical but you had me at 1=0)

Just thoughts

From infinity's perspective 0 and 1 are the same.

Originally posted by itsallintheegg
reply to post by r2d246

 

Ya try looking into gematria. Most people are turned off to the idea that there could be messages in the chance equation of the numerical value of letters.. and think that somehow you can come up with whatever you want... but as long as the formula is consistent, there are things to be found that no person could have come up with.

Take the first verse of the Bible for example : biblewheel.com...
Divine Inspiration?, or someone with too much time on their hands?
Who knows? I do. Because I took the time to look and find out for myself.

Why do you thing the Freemasons really use the letter G in the center of the Square/Compass?

Do you think its for God?
Or 'Great Architect'?,
or Geometry?,
or maybe GEMATRIA, which implies all of those, as well as contains 7 letters, the number of the letter G, and the same GEMATRIA value as LUCIFER, the 7 lettered deity they worship as GOD/Great Architect whose Geometry is reflected in the Logos/Word of Man. That, and Lucifer is the 'Light Bearer' and there are 7 rays in the color spectrum.

HMMMM..... Im only 20 and yet I know 50 year olds who haven't an inkling of an idea of what's been blatantly obvious for AGES.

They're too scared of Satan, or Demons to open a freaking Aleister Crowley book, or hell, the ORIGINAL HEBREW/GREEK versions of the 66 books of the Bible!

edit on 21-9-2012 by itsallintheegg because: typo

Yes I agree with some of what you said about freemasons.

And anyone who's say 50 would also say "someone who's 20 always thinks they know it all until they reach 50".

Also....

"This one thing I know, I know nothing." Socrates. ha ha ;-p

reply to post by IAmD1


I think you're taking it a little to literally, but when you use the associative property with this 0 = 1, you get all sorts of crazy stuff, like this:

If 0 = 1 & 1 + 2 = 3 then 0 + 2 = 3 so if 2 = 3 and we multiply 3 x 1 = 0, but because zero = 1, one is also equal to 3, if 1 = 3, then 3^23523 = 1 which is = 0, which is mathematically absurd. The point remains that even though there is nothing, that nothing is still something,. When you think about it, you can have an enormous amount of nothing, or a small amount of nothing. To better explain think of a void in space where nothing exist, no dark matter, no stellar dust, nothing. Nothing occupies the space, yet it still exists, now imagine if that nothingness occupies and area much greater than a galaxy; we can say that is a whole lot of nothing, which the rule implies.

I don't want to take the mathematics of it to far, because it destroys most of what we understand about math, and we just can't have that.

Originally posted by wishful1gnorance
reply to post by IAmD1

 

I think you're taking it a little to literally, but when you use the associative property with this 0 = 1, you get all sorts of crazy stuff, like this:

........... Nothing occupies the space, yet it still exists, now imagine if that nothingness occupies and area much greater than a galaxy; we can say that is a whole lot of nothing, which the rule implies.

I don't want to take the mathematics of it to far, because it destroys most of what we understand about math, and we just can't have that.

It makes sense to me
I already came to the understanding a while ago that nothing exists, although it is absurd in math terms (for now) .
If 0 = [ 0, 1, 2, 3....n] for all numbers (again not a mathematician but I hope you get it with out the math precision), then that implies void is the container of all including itself. As such void must be full as supposed to void, although both are true at once and the 0 degrees = 360 degrees occupying the same space example proves that. Nothing occupies this space which is absurd yet completely logical. How much space does nothing occupy? My non math understanding is that it occupies, all the spaces all of the time, and gives rise to everything that in turn gives rise to nothing.


But I know nothing

Where it becomes interesting is you can point at something and something else but never nothing and nothing else.

much love

reply to post by wishful1gnorance


I typed free will not "own", a machine isn't willing its self to move.