Material and Spiritual

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 27
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
If there exists... non-material planes of being or levels of consciousness that everyone can experience, the highest of these being the spiritual plane......then how to define these terms and concepts?

1}  " non-material planes of being" to me, means that which is beyond occupied space --- physical reality{ Spirit-2 }, Gravity{ Spirit-3 } and Dark Energy Spirit-4 } ---, and that leaves only two possibilities for defining ' beyond the material plane ‘;
......1a}  the macro-infinite truly non-occupied space, that embraces our finite, occupied space Universe, and/or,
.......1b} Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that which exists beyond our finite, occupied space  Universe and the truly non-occupied space, that, again exists outside/beyond/Meta our finite occupied space Universe.

So with the above in consideration, ' non-material ' to me, would mean Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego, that, I also label as Spirit-1. However, the word ' beings ' is included in that statement of belief. Traditionally/customarily we think of ' beings ' ex human beings, as an occupied spac  e.

This latter means we need to make an adjustment to our  defining of the word ' material '. So an alternate to the above conundrum caused by the word ' beings ',  I would propose that ' material ' means our physical reality { Spirit-2 }, and what is beyond that occupied space of quantised and quantified physical reality  is the non-quantised and non-quantified, Spirit-3, occupied space of Gravity{ mass-attraction/contraction }, and Spirit-4, Dark Energy { expansive acceleration aka cosmological constant }.

So then we come to the last part of the statement of belief, '  highest plane of these being the spiritual plane '.  Above I lay out my belief of four primary kinds of Spirit { 1, 2 3 and 4 }.  Since Spirit-1 Meta-space, is not a cartesian, 2D area { plane } as in XY part of a 3D { XYZ } volumetric occupied space, I would have to say the highest plane is Spirit-3, Gravity { mass-attraction/contraction }.

The above is simplest way I know to explain the statement of belief  ' the highest ', however, if any were to delve deeper in to my cosmological scenarios, Gravity is the outer peak of encoded consciousness, and it is intimately related to the inner peak of encoded consciousness as Dark Energy.  Between the outer and inner is our  quantise-able and quantifiable physical reality consciousness. ( * * ).

My simple iconic and 2ndary symbolism  for these three is based on a 3D torus and this is the 2D bisection, as follows. ......space(>*<) i  (>*<)space....., wherein, the italicised i is Meta-space ego, that, exists outside/beyond the occupied space of Gravity (  ), Dark Energy )( and the sine-wave associated physical reality /\/\/\/ that is inbetween Gravity and Dark Energy, and actually a resultant of the invaginations { >< } from the outer peaks and inner peaks  (>*<)(>*<) that in its most complex evolution is that of bilateral human consciousness { * * } with access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego.

Einstein talked about how Gravity could be made to be  contractive or expansive, so Einstein inserted into his general relativity,  this mathematical factor he called the cosmological constant { expanding Universe }. Then later said it was greatest blunder of his life. Then along came Hubble who observed an expanding Universe, and then in 90's cosmologist observed the accelerating expansion of Universe and inserted a name for this phenomena, Dark Energy.

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@ebuc
If there exists... non-material planes of being or levels of consciousness that everyone can experience, the highest of these being the spiritual plane......then how to define these terms and concepts?

1}  " non-material planes of being" to me, means that which is beyond occupied space --- physical reality{ Spirit-2 }, Gravity{ Spirit-3 } and Dark Energy Spirit-4 } ---, and that leaves only two possibilities for defining ' beyond the material plane ‘;
......1a}  the macro-infinite truly non-occupied space, that embraces our finite, occupied space Universe, and/or,
.......1b} Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that which exists beyond our finite, occupied space  Universe and the truly non-occupied space, that, again exists outside/beyond/Meta our finite occupied space Universe.

So with the above in consideration, ' non-material ' to me, would mean Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego, that, I also label as Spirit-1. However, the word ' beings ' is included in that statement of belief. Traditionally/customarily we think of ' beings ' ex human beings, as an occupied spac  e.

This latter means we need to make an adjustment to our  defining of the word ' material '. So an alternate to the above conundrum caused by the word ' beings ',  I would propose that ' material ' means our physical reality { Spirit-2 }, and what is beyond that occupied space of quantised and quantified physical reality  is the non-quantised and non-quantified, Spirit-3, occupied space of Gravity{ mass-attraction/contraction }, and Spirit-4, Dark Energy { expansive acceleration aka cosmological constant }.

So then we come to the last part of the statement of belief, '  highest plane of these being the spiritual plane '.  Above I lay out my belief of four primary kinds of Spirit { 1, 2 3 and 4 }.  Since Spirit-1 Meta-space, is not a cartesian, 2D area { plane } as in XY part of a 3D { XYZ } volumetric occupied space, I would have to say the highest plane is Spirit-3, Gravity { mass-attraction/contraction }.

The above is simplest way I know to explain the statement of belief  ' the highest ', however, if any were to delve deeper in to my cosmological scenarios, Gravity is the outer peak of encoded consciousness, and it is intimately related to the inner peak of encoded consciousness as Dark Energy.  Between the outer and inner is our  quantise-able and quantifiable physical reality consciousness. ( * * ).

My simple iconic and 2ndary symbolism  for these three is based on a 3D torus and this is the 2D bisection, as follows. ......space(>*<) i  (>*<)space....., wherein, the italicised i is Meta-space ego, that, exists outside/beyond the occupied space of Gravity (  ), Dark Energy )( and the sine-wave associated physical reality /\/\/\/ that is inbetween Gravity and Dark Energy, and actually a resultant of the invaginations { >< } from the outer peaks and inner peaks  (>*<)(>*<) that in its most complex evolution is that of bilateral human consciousness { * * } with access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego.

Einstein talked about how Gravity could be made to be  contractive or expansive, so Einstein inserted into his general relativity,  this mathematical factor he called the cosmological constant { expanding Universe }. Then later said it was greatest blunder of his life. Then along came Hubble who observed an expanding Universe, and then in 90's cosmologist observed the accelerating expansion of Universe and inserted a name for this phenomena, Dark Energy.
Albert Einstein was an atheist. His spiritual plane was physics. After exhausting gravity in the search for an answer to the expanding universe, he introduced the cosmological constant. Which we now know as Dark Matter.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Shila
Which we now know as Dark Matter.

False and you need to improve you reading comprehension skills. Dark Energy is the correct answer as I stated.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
--> @ebuc
If there exists... non-material planes of being or levels of consciousness that everyone can experience, the highest of these being the spiritual plane......then how to define these terms and concepts?

1}  " non-material planes of being" to me, means that which is beyond occupied space --- physical reality{ Spirit-2 }, Gravity{ Spirit-3 } and Dark Energy Spirit-4 } ---, and that leaves only two possibilities for defining ' beyond the material plane ‘;
......1a}  the macro-infinite truly non-occupied space, that embraces our finite, occupied space Universe, and/or,
.......1b} Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that which exists beyond our finite, occupied space  Universe and the truly non-occupied space, that, again exists outside/beyond/Meta our finite occupied space Universe.

So with the above in consideration, ' non-material ' to me, would mean Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego, that, I also label as Spirit-1. However, the word ' beings ' is included in that statement of belief. Traditionally/customarily we think of ' beings ' ex human beings, as an occupied spac  e.

This latter means we need to make an adjustment to our  defining of the word ' material '. So an alternate to the above conundrum caused by the word ' beings ',  I would propose that ' material ' means our physical reality { Spirit-2 }, and what is beyond that occupied space of quantised and quantified physical reality  is the non-quantised and non-quantified, Spirit-3, occupied space of Gravity{ mass-attraction/contraction }, and Spirit-4, Dark Energy { expansive acceleration aka cosmological constant }.

So then we come to the last part of the statement of belief, '  highest plane of these being the spiritual plane '.  Above I lay out my belief of four primary kinds of Spirit { 1, 2 3 and 4 }.  Since Spirit-1 Meta-space, is not a cartesian, 2D area { plane } as in XY part of a 3D { XYZ } volumetric occupied space, I would have to say the highest plane is Spirit-3, Gravity { mass-attraction/contraction }.

The above is simplest way I know to explain the statement of belief  ' the highest ', however, if any were to delve deeper in to my cosmological scenarios, Gravity is the outer peak of encoded consciousness, and it is intimately related to the inner peak of encoded consciousness as Dark Energy.  Between the outer and inner is our  quantise-able and quantifiable physical reality consciousness. ( * * ).

My simple iconic and 2ndary symbolism  for these three is based on a 3D torus and this is the 2D bisection, as follows. ......space(>*<) i  (>*<)space....., wherein, the italicised i is Meta-space ego, that, exists outside/beyond the occupied space of Gravity (  ), Dark Energy )( and the sine-wave associated physical reality /\/\/\/ that is inbetween Gravity and Dark Energy, and actually a resultant of the invaginations { >< } from the outer peaks and inner peaks  (>*<)(>*<) that in its most complex evolution is that of bilateral human consciousness { * * } with access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego.

Einstein talked about how Gravity could be made to be  contractive or expansive, so Einstein inserted into his general relativity,  this mathematical factor he called the cosmological constant { expanding Universe }. Then later said it was greatest blunder of his life. Then along came Hubble who observed an expanding Universe, and then in 90's cosmologist observed the accelerating expansion of Universe and inserted a name for this phenomena, Dark Energy.
Albert Einstein was an atheist. His spiritual plane was physics. After exhausting gravity in the search for an answer to the expanding universe, he introduced the cosmological constant. Which we now know as Dark Energy. (Corrected)

183 days later

Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 195
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
I'm intrigued. This is right up my ally: An abstract philosophical discussion on the nature of reality. I have some questions:

1}  " non-material planes of being" to me, means that which is beyond occupied space --- physical reality{ Spirit-2 }, Gravity{ Spirit-3 } and Dark Energy Spirit-4 } ---, and that leaves only two possibilities for defining ' beyond the material plane ‘;
......1a}  the macro-infinite truly non-occupied space, that embraces our finite, occupied space Universe, and/or,
.......1b} Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that which exists beyond our finite, occupied space  Universe and the truly non-occupied space, that, again exists outside/beyond/Meta our finite occupied space Universe.

  • What exactly does it mean for something to exist? You, like me, seem to be under the impression that it is not just physical reality that exists, but what exactly is your criterion for existence?
  • Why "Spirit?"
  • Why the exact partitioning and enumeration that you chose? (i.e. why is gravity before dark energy, physical reality before gravity, etc.)
  • Could you further elaborate on Spirit-1, especially Spirit-1a? I'm curious to hear some of the things you consider to fall under these categories.
The above is simplest way I know to explain the statement of belief  ' the highest ', however, if any were to delve deeper in to my cosmological scenarios, Gravity is the outer peak of encoded consciousness, and it is intimately related to the inner peak of encoded consciousness as Dark Energy.  Between the outer and inner is our  quantise-able and quantifiable physical reality consciousness. ( * * ).
  • What is encoded consciousness exactly?
  • What makes these seemingly arbitrary things "peaks?"
  • What role does consciousness play in the rest of reality according to you?
My simple iconic and 2ndary symbolism  for these three is based on a 3D torus and this is the 2D bisection, as follows. ......space(>*<) i  (>*<)space....., wherein, the italicised i is Meta-space ego, that, exists outside/beyond the occupied space of Gravity (  ), Dark Energy )( and the sine-wave associated physical reality /\/\/\/ that is inbetween Gravity and Dark Energy, and actually a resultant of the invaginations { >< } from the outer peaks and inner peaks  (>*<)(>*<) that in its most complex evolution is that of bilateral human consciousness { * * } with access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego.
  • Could you elaborate on how these geometric objects are analogous to what they represent?
Lastly, I just wanted to comment that you are the only person other than myself I have ever know to come up with a theory of the nature of reality encompassing both its physical and non-physical aspects, and furthermore, incorporate math and logic into it! I think we would get along well! The structure of your idea is entirely different from mine, but we both do the following:
  • Use math.
  • Partition reality into different physical and non-physical tiers.
  • Attempt to analyze what exactly reality is, and what the best way for our limited minds to think about it is.
I will share my concept in a later post to this thread, but this post has gone on long enough, and I have other things which I need to do with my life.

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
  • What exactly does it mean for something to exist?
  • Three primary kinds of existence: 1} Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego is abtract existence. Concepts of space not actual space.  Check your dictionary, 2} macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space exists outside of the following, 3} finite, occupied space Universe.  1,2,3,A,B,C, thats how easy Universe can be
  • Why "Spirit?"
  • See dictionary for the word. All ive done is associate one or more of the deffenitions with what we observe and logical deduce to exist in the above 1 and 3
  • Why the exact partitioning and enumeration that you chose? (i.e. why is gravity before dark energy, physical reality before gravity, etc.)
  • See Physical Reality elements in Personal catagory...I tagged you there
  • Could you further elaborate on Spirit-1, especially Spirit-1a? I'm curious to hear some of the things you consider to fall under these categories.
  • See also phyiscal reality in Personal catagory where I tag you




  • 18 days later

    Math_Enthusiast
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 195
    0
    2
    7
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Math_Enthusiast
    0
    2
    7
    My concept of reality:

    Part 1: The basic idea.

    If anyone was waiting on this, (so probably no one) sorry for keeping you waiting! I have been busy irl. I recently coined a term for my beliefs: Spiritual logicism. Logicism is a pre-existing philosophy of mathematics. (We'll get back to reality in general momentarily.) I'm not going to define it here, but instead recommend reading this webpage for more information. The reason I omit the definition is that I would instead like to present my own version of logicism somewhat strengthened from even strong logicism: All of mathematics is an extension of logic. Not just certain fields, and not just mathematical truth, all of mathematics. This still isn't too radical of an idea, but spiritual logicism is, in my experience, basically unheard of. Here is my definition:

    Spiritual logicism: The belief that spiritual truths about the universe can be understood as, and fundamentally are, an extension of abstract logic. An extension of logicism to the nature of reality.

    Part 2: Why?

    One could reasonably ask how on earth I would come to such a conclusion. As such, I don't just want to go straight to explaining the ramifications of such a belief system, but rather want to begin by explaining how I came to believe what I do. I have always wanted to understand the deeper truth about the universe, and having a mathematical/logical background I realized that to conclude anything, I would need at least one assumption. My goal, however, was to minimize assumptions. In the end, I settled on one and only one assumption, but it soon became clear just how vast the implications were. I present, the truth premise:

    The truth premise: There is a valid and complete notion of truth.

    Despite how short it is, there is a lot to unpack. First of all, there is an issue here: The truth premise asserts itself as true, before any sort of notion of truth has been established. My resolution to this: Ignore it. Performing some sort of bootstrap here is entirely necessary. We effectively just accept the truth premise as if it has already been established as true within the valid and complete notion of truth that it assures the existence of. Now let's break down what the truth premise really means. There are two key words: Valid and complete.

    Valid: Consistent and sound.

    Complete: Capable of assigning every objective and meaningful statement a truth value of true or false.

    Consistent: Containing no contradiction. No statement is both true and false.

    You may have noticed that I have omitted the definition of soundness. In logic, the soundness of a set of axioms means that they imply only true results. The issue here is that we are trying to obtain a notion of truth in the first place. Soundness as it is used here is to say that if there is any sort of underlying truth structure within the universe, this notion of truth is consistent not only with itself, but with this underlying truth structure. It is not clear what such a structure would be, but nonetheless it is an important precaution. Now, why should we accept the truth premise? Put simply: We need it. Without the truth premise, it is impossible to conclude anything. Let's suppose we put together some other set of assumptions that did not include the truth premise. Without the truth premise, an assertion of their truth wouldn't even be meaningful. We need a meaningful notion of truth as described in the truth premise. If someone wants to see it, I will explain why each assumption on the notion of truth is necessary for meaningful deductions to be made, but for now I will omit the specifics. Now, reasonably, we should be able to define binary functions (such as and, or, not, etc.) and have a meaningful notion of certain statements about them being true. Let's define f to be the or operation for an example. Then f(0,0) = 0, f(0, 1) = 1, f(1, 0) = 1, and f(1, 1) = 1. Reasonably, these should all by definition be true statements. This could be considered to fall under the soundness condition, where, for an example, f(0, 0) = 0 must be considered to be true, because the value of f(0, 0) is by definition 0. Replaces 0 and 1 with the truth values T and F we can rewrite these values as f(F, F) = F, f(F, T) = T, f(T, F) = T, f(T, T) = T. We now get propositional logic. We can show, for example, that P implies P or Q. (I can't type logical connectives, so I'll just use words.) We create a truth table:

    P = F, Q = F: P or Q = F or F = F, P implies P or Q = F implies F = T.
    P = T, Q = F: P or Q = T or F = T, P implies P or Q = T implies T = T.
    P = F, Q = T: P or Q = F or T = T, P implies P or Q = F implies T = T.
    P = T, Q = T: P or Q = T or T = T, P implies P or Q = T implies T = T.

    So in all cases P implies P or Q is true. At this point, we have seen that any notion of truth as in the truth premise should include propositional logic, and thus that we can consider the axioms of propositional logic can be considered a part of our definition of truth. It is possible that this notion of truth, to satisfy completeness, needs to include other axioms. Recall that completeness requires that our notion of truth assigns true or false to every "meaningful and objective" statement. To uncover what this means for our notion of truth, let's take a quick detour to another belief. Some people hold the belief that they are imagining the entire universe, and that it is all within their head. While this doesn't seem particularly reasonable, we can't prove them wrong with empirical evidence. The key thing to realize is that in different contexts, there are different reasonable/useful assumptions. Another example would be mathematics, in which we (at least in most areas of math) assume the nine axioms of ZFC. In conclusion, the notion of truth described in the truth premise can be thought of all possible extensions of propositional logic, where we must specify the context (which extension it is in reference to) of any non-tautological truth.

    I will continue in a separate post.


    Math_Enthusiast
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 195
    0
    2
    7
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Math_Enthusiast
    0
    2
    7
    And now the promised continuation.

    Part 3: Axiomatization and conceptualization.

    We left off with the conclusion that truth can be viewed as all possible extensions of propositional logic. Namely, with certain additional axioms, we should be able to describe our own reality. This leads us to the axiomatization principle:

    The axiomatization principle: The reality we live in can be entirely described by a set of axioms.

    At this point, spiritual logicism is an obvious conclusion. So what are these mysterious axioms? Well, we don't know, but one could view science as the field which searches for this answer. Science attempts to find the laws by which the universe abides by studying it from the inside. Our best guess at the moment is probably M-theory. The laws of M-theory can be seen as a candidate for the set of axioms which define our universe. This notion of truth also has another critical implication. Concepts separate from reality are just as real as it, so long as they are well-defined. One such example is math. The reason math is an important example is that it also relates to our reality. This demonstrates how concepts separate from our reality being just as real as it could potentially have some very big implications. At this point, we approach the realm of more specific conclusions about the nature of reality, of which there are many, so I intend, as soon as I get qualification to create a new forum topic, to create a spiritual logicism topic to discuss this in more detail. Until then, I will leave it to whoever may read this to think about the ramifications of these principles.

    ebuc
    ebuc's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 4,920
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc's avatar
    ebuc
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @Math_Enthusiast
    Spiritual logicism: The belief that spiritual truths about the universe can be understood as, and fundamentally are, an extension of abstract logic. An extension of logicism to the nature of reality.
    .......1b} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that whichexists beyond our finite, occupied space  Universe and beyond the macro-finite and trulynon-occupied space, that, again exists outside/beyond/Meta ourfinite occupied space Universe, ex concepts of Space, God, Time, Universe, Toyotas, Concepts, Dogs, etc

    Ergo, your "spiritual logicism" falls within my definition above, as revised from post #1 in this thread.

    All that you have to offer will always fall withing my Cosmic Trinary Set. This can also be seen in new thread i.e. there is not a definition of this or that, that, will not fall within my Cosmic Trinary Set, as its the most wholistic set of existence.

    See my new thread, Revised Wholistic Set of Existence  --always being developed/reveised--   that Ive posted for years as the Cosmic Trinary Set. Again all that say exists will fall within or under that tryinary set. Only a rare few have tried to invalidate what laid out clearly as if reading the Contents section at beginning of a educational book. The Cosmic Trinary Set.

    Math_Enthusiast
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 195
    0
    2
    7
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Math_Enthusiast
    0
    2
    7
    -->
    @ebuc
    .......1b} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that whichexists beyond our finite, occupied space  Universe and beyond the macro-finite and trulynon-occupied space, that, again exists outside/beyond/Meta ourfinite occupied space Universe, ex concepts of Space, God, Time, Universe, Toyotas, Concepts, Dogs, etc

    Ergo, your "spiritual logicism" falls within my definition above, as revised from post #1 in this thread.

    Did you read my posts? The whole idea is to identify what is real. Saying "everything which exists in the universe" is not very useful to that end. Moreover, even if the above contains some non-circular definition of what is real that I somehow missed, it makes no reference to logic being at the basis of this, so no, spiritual logicism does not fall under that. To your credit, if this were to be interpreted as that your definition is consistent with spiritual logicism, you wouldn't be wrong. Nonetheless, you went on to say this:

    All that you have to offer will always fall withing my Cosmic Trinary Set. This can also be seen in new thread i.e. there is not a definition of this or that, that, will not fall within my Cosmic Trinary Set, as its the most wholistic set of existence.

    Wow. That's kind of stuck up. How would you know that all I have to offer falls into one of your concepts? I've looked at many of your posts, and your ideas differ from mine significantly, so I assure you that this is not the case, and ask once again, did you read my posts? I get it, there was a lot there. I would understand if you got bored trying to read through it all, but if you didn't do any more then skim my post, then please don't go around telling me what I have to offer. Your ideas aren't the only ones out there you know.

    See my new thread, Revised Wholistic Set of Existence  --always being developed/reveised--   that Ive posted for years as the Cosmic Trinary Set. Again all that say exists will fall within or under that tryinary set. Only a rare few have tried to invalidate what laid out clearly as if reading the Contents section at beginning of a educational book. The Cosmic Trinary Set.

    You know, I'll go do that. Seriously, as soon as I press the "create post" button, I'm going to go and do that. The reason is that I respect your ideas, and want to learn from you. I can see that you have some interesting things to bring to the table. Try to have that same respect for me.

    I don't want to turn this into any sort of rivalry of ideas, but I'm frankly sort of disappointed that you would show so little regard for what I have put real effort into. We don't need to get aggressive with each other. All I ask is that you respect my ideas like I respect yours.
    ebuc
    ebuc's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 4,920
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc's avatar
    ebuc
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @Math_Enthusiast
    The whole idea is to identify what is real. Saying "everything which exists in the universe" is not very useful to that end.
    Physical reality { an occupied space } " what is real " = energy { an occupied space }  = what we can quantise via instrumentation ergo an occupied space.

    0} Spirit-1, Meta-space

    -------conceptual line of demarcation------

    1} macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces the following,

    2} Spirit-2, 3 and 4, finite occupied space Universe

    .. 2a} } Spirit-2, physical reality falls in catagory of Spirit-2 aka fermionic matter  and bosonic forces and yes there is new third catagory that is hybrid of those two,

    ...2b} Spirit-3, non-quantised, Gravity,

    ....2c} Spirit-4, non-quantised Dark Energy.

    First and foremost, what Ive tried to make clear to you, that whatever definitive descriptions of existence you have to offer, fall into the Cosmic Trinary Set { 0, 1, 2 }.  Do you understand that? 

    You need to start there, then we can get into specific subcatgories, as ive done for 20 years or more ex 2} 2a} 2b} 2c} as the primary trinary set of occupied space. Do you understand that? Any occupied space existence falls into one of  more of those three sub-catagories.

    If you can add to or invalidates any of those please share, otherwise, what I state above to you is the starting place, for all that you think exists. Understand?

    Again, read the Cosmic Trinary Set as if it were a book containing the most wholistic set of existence. Start with most wholistic set and no parts can be exclude, i.e. anything you have to offer will fall into one of those The top Cosmic Trinary Set first and fore most. When you grasp that, then we can move on.
    Math_Enthusiast
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 195
    0
    2
    7
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Math_Enthusiast
    0
    2
    7
    -->
    @ebuc
    Physical reality { an occupied space } " what is real " = energy { an occupied space }  = what we can quantise via instrumentation ergo an occupied space.

    Okay. Not bad. But it certainly doesn't somehow contain my position. I hope you have let go of that idea.

    First and foremost, what Ive tried to make clear to you, that whatever definitive descriptions of existence you have to offer, fall into the Cosmic Trinary Set { 0, 1, 2 }.  Do you understand that? 

    No. No I actually don't. I don't understand why you think that anything I have to offer must fall under something you came up with. Could you please just respect that I have my own ideas separate from your own?

    You need to start there, then we can get into specific subcatgories, as ive done for 20 years or more ex 2} 2a} 2b} 2c} as the primary trinary set of occupied space. Do you understand that? Any occupied space existence falls into one of  more of those three sub-catagories.

    I respect that that is your notion of reality, yes. That doesn't mean mine has to be consistent with it.

    If you can add to or invalidates any of those please share, otherwise, what I state above to you is the starting place, for all that you think exists. Understand?

    Once again, the short answer is no, I don't understand that. I'm not here to invalidate your ideas, I just wanted to share my own. I also don't have anything to add to what you have said. That doesn't mean that what you say is necessarily the "starting place for all that I think exists." My ideas are not your ideas. Please accept that my ideas are different from yours. Also, I wouldn't make this a debate if I were you, because I'm the only one who has actually justified my beliefs instead of just stating them. We could have an actual debate on whose ideas are more plausible if that's where you want to go with this. I would ask that it be on balance of the topic of which of our ideas is more plausible, where we would use my provided definition of spiritual logicism, and whatever definition of your beliefs you chose as long as I felt that it was consistent with what we discussed here. (You would create the challenge, and if we couldn't agree on a definition of your position, we simply wouldn't debate it.)

    Again, read the Cosmic Trinary Set as if it were a book containing the most wholistic set of existence. Start with most wholistic set and no parts can be exclude, i.e. anything you have to offer will fall into one of those The top Cosmic Trinary Set first and fore most. When you grasp that, then we can move on.

    I don't grasp that, so apparently we can't move on. Your notion of the "most wholistic set of existence" doesn't necessarily contain mine.
    ebuc
    ebuc's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 4,920
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc's avatar
    ebuc
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @Math_Enthusiast
    I don't grasp that, so apparently we can't move on. Your notion of the "most wholistic set of existence" doesn't necessarily contain mine.
    Yes it does, So you really have no idea of the primary cosmic set " the most wholistic set', that Im presenting to you, and that is the place to start with the greatest whole ergo no parts can be excluded.

    the trinary cosmic set is simple, not complex to grasp. You need to start there cause anything you have to offer false into one or more of those three primary catagories. Once you grasp that, then we can move on. you dont grasp that yet

    Math_Enthusiast
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 195
    0
    2
    7
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Math_Enthusiast
    0
    2
    7
    -->
    @ebuc
    No. No I don't understand why you think that everyone else's ideas must somehow already be a part of yours. Please explain why you think that.
    Math_Enthusiast
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 195
    0
    2
    7
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Math_Enthusiast
    0
    2
    7
    -->
    @ebuc
    Please disregard post #14. My computer glitched, and I got confused as to what I was responding to.

    Yes it does, So you really have no idea of the primary cosmic set " the most wholistic set', that Im presenting to you, and that is the place to start with the greatest whole ergo no parts can be excluded
    Please explain why you are so sure of yourself. How do you know it is the greatest whole?
    ebuc
    ebuc's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 4,920
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc's avatar
    ebuc
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @Math_Enthusiast
    No. No I don't understand why you think that everyone else's ideas must somehow already be a part of yours. Please explain why you think that.
    I did explain in post #9 today, you obviously disagree, and dont grasp the simple. So I have keep going back until you can grasp the simple, before we can move on.

    Spiritual logicism: The belief that spiritual truths about the universe can be understood as, and fundamentally are, an extension of abstract logic. An extension of logicism to the nature of reality.
    .......0} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that whichexists beyond our finite, occupied space  Universe and beyond the macro-finite and trulynon-occupied space, that, again exists outside/beyond/Meta ourfinite occupied space Universe, ex concepts of Space, God, Time, Universe, Toyotas, Concepts, Dogs, etc

    Your Spiritual logicism falls in catagory of 0}above, or in post #1 i have it as 1b. Thenumerical labeling is irrelevant, the content of what I state clearly and I put that catagory in italics to help make the clear distinction from non-occupied space and occupied space.  Your really need to start with the whole and grasp that first. So when i tell you what catagory you commment falls into, you will understand. Understand that?



    Math_Enthusiast
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 195
    0
    2
    7
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Math_Enthusiast
    0
    2
    7
    -->
    @ebuc
    No. No I don't understand why you think that everyone else's ideas must somehow already be a part of yours. Please explain why you think that.
    I did explain in post #9 today, you obviously disagree, and dont grasp the simple. So I have keep going back until you can grasp the simple, before we can move on.
    Clearly you didn't read post #15 which asked you to kindly disregard post #14, as my computer glitched, and I thought a prior post hadn't gone through, so I was attempting to rewrite it briefly. Regardless, if it is so unbelievably simple, then please do tell why it is that your personal concept of everything must indeed be everything.

    Spiritual logicism: The belief that spiritual truths about the universe can be understood as, and fundamentally are, an extension of abstract logic. An extension of logicism to the nature of reality.
    .......0} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that whichexists beyond our finite, occupied space  Universe and beyond the macro-finite and trulynon-occupied space, that, again exists outside/beyond/Meta ourfinite occupied space Universe, ex concepts of Space, God, Time, Universe, Toyotas, Concepts, Dogs, etc

    Your Spiriual logicism falls in catagory of 0}above, or in post #1 i have it as 1b. Thenumerical labeling is irrelevant, the content of what I state clearly
    Once again, your definition makes no reference to reality being founded in logic, so mine does not fall into that catagory.

    ebuc
    ebuc's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 4,920
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc's avatar
    ebuc
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @Math_Enthusiast
    Once again, your definition makes no reference to reality being founded in logic, so mine does not fall into that catagory.
    Spirit-2, physical eality = energy = quantised stuff is occupied space ergo a subcatagory of our finite Universe. Ok you got that?

    Spirit-1, Meta-space = mind/intellect/concepts ergo logic, common sense, critical thinking etc. And ego. You that.

    Abstract concept of Space is not actual space, and same goes of concept of occupied space thing. Dogs, GOd, Time, Universe concepts are Meta-space not and actual space.

    Please try and make a distinction between an abstract concept of a dog and an occupied space dog that will actually bite your leg you could get occupied space virus bacteria etc. Can you make that distinction? Do I have to lead you to a dictionary?

    I will keeo going over this untill you are able to make these distinctions at the top of cosmic trinary set. Simple, not difficult to grasp,  unless your ego gets in the way, or you not taking the time to understand and comprehend what Ive stated from the get go --at the top of each thread-- to you




    Math_Enthusiast
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 195
    0
    2
    7
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Math_Enthusiast
    0
    2
    7
    -->
    @ebuc
    Abstract concept of Space is not actual space, and same goes of concept of occupied space thing. Dogs, GOd, Time, Universe concepts are Meta-space not and actual space.
    This proves your point how?

    Please try and make a distinction between an abstract concept of a dog and an occupied space dog that will actually bite your leg you could get occupied space virus bacteria etc. Can you make that distinction? Do I have to lead you to a dictionary?
    Yes, I can. Why did you think I couldn't? How is this relevant? Once again, this proves your point how?

    I will keeo going over this untill you are able to make these distinctions at the top of cosmic trinary set. Simple, not difficult to grasp,  unless your ego gets in the way, or you not taking the time to understand and comprehend what Ive stated from the get go --at the top of each thread-- to you
    "Unless my ego gets in the way, or I am not taking the time to understand and comprehend what I've stated from the get go --at the top of each thread-- to you." Oh I'm doing that am I? You are the one who clearly either didn't fully read or didn't fully understand my posts, and you are the one who seems to be under the impression that your ideas are superior to mine by default. Need I remind you that you said this back in post #9?
    All that you have to offer will always fall withing my Cosmic Trinary Set. 
    The way I see it, you are the one whose ego is getting in the way, and you are the one who isn't taking the time to understand and comprehend what I said. This madness all started from me asking for you to respect my ideas as separate from your own. Respect. Respect for the time and effort that I put in to the ideas that I have shared with you here. That was all I ever asked for. Does wanting respect mean I have a big ego? Please just acknowledge that neither of us has thought of everything that the other has.
    ebuc
    ebuc's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 4,920
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc's avatar
    ebuc
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @Math_Enthusiast
    MEn--post #18---Once again, your definition makes no reference to reality being founded in logic, so mine does not fall into that catagory.
    To which I responded with this and other.

    eB--Abstract concept of Space is not actual space, and same goes of concept of occupied space thing. Dogs, GOd, Time, Universe concepts are Meta-space not and actual space.
    This proves your point how?
    I didnt say it proved a point. I presented to you then --and  clearly laying out for you in several threads now---, the catagorical differrences/distinctions/differrentiations,  between,

    0} Spirit-1 Meta-space, mind/intellect/concepts and ego,  and that of,

    2} Spirit-2,  occupied space physical reality as energy aka fermionic matter and bosonic forces.

    It seems you dont grasp anything I present to you, so either you not reading, not understand and comprehending or you ego is in the way of accepting the obvious catagorically defined distinctions ergo I have to keep repeating and repeating and repeating the same comments to you until you get these catagorical distinctions.

    I believe it is a ego based mental blockage.

    EB--Please try and make a distinction between an abstract concept of a dog and an occupied space dog that will actually bite your leg you could get occupied space virus bacteria etc. Can you make that distinction? Do I have to lead you to a dictionary?
    ME--Yes, I can. Why did you think I couldn't? How is this relevant? Once again, this proves your point how?
    Because you have not address them specfically and you have shown zero evidence that you understand or accept anything ive presented. What a chore you have become.

    EB--I will keep going over this untill you are able to make these distinctions at the top of cosmic trinary set. Simple, not difficult to grasp,  unless your ego gets in the way, or you not taking the time to understand and comprehend what Ive stated from the get go --at the top of each thread-- to you
    "Unless my ego gets in the way, or I am not taking the time to understand and comprehend what I've stated from the get go --at the top of each thread-- to you." Oh I'm doing that am I?
    Yes, that is one option, and ive stated over and over other options, however, over time,  since  youve not addressed any of them directly and basically glossed over them, and showed no evidence of grasping them, and yes,  then eventually,  anyone will come to the conclusion I have, that you have ego based mental blockage to relatively clear defintions,  catagories, as ive presented.

    And any comment you make, present etc, is going to fall within one of those catagorical primary sets, as some immediate { 1st } subset/subcatagory, or 2nd or 3rd etc.

    ME---You are the one who clearly either didn't fully read or didn't fully understand my posts, and you are the one who seems to be under the impression that your ideas are superior to mine by default. Need I remind you that you said this back in post #9?
    I read and addressed your line of text in post #7,  of text regarding Spiritual logicism andI then responeded  in #9, to that told you what catagory/set it falls within, and you did not address my response directly, or if you did, you obviously did answer correctly, i.e. you went off without again addressing the specifics of the catagory you comment falls within.

    EB---All that you have to offer will always fall withing my Cosmic Trinary Set. 
    The way I see it, you are the one whose ego is getting in the way, and you are the one who isn't taking the time to understand and comprehend what I said.

    See above regarding post # 7 by you then #9 by me.  I directly read and addressed on specific comment and you have pretty much had a mental blockage for the most since that response by me in  #9.

    This madness all started from me asking for you to respect my ideas as separate from your own. Respect.

    Respect is 2-way street. You need to go back to #9 and start there. My response is directly in regards to your #7 and mine is very specific and very clearly defined and you have not showed much of any respect by showing how my comment to you was  invalid. Your along ways from respect.

    Respect for the time and effort that I put in to the ideas that I have shared with you here. That was all I ever asked for. Does wanting respect mean I have a big ego? Please just acknowledge that neither of us has thought of everything that the other has.
    My ego read you comment in #7 and my ego responded in #9 by directly addressing your comment and showing you what catagory of the Cosmic Trinary Set it falls within, clearly defined.

    When you want to drop you ego and directly respond, ---some umpteen posts in several threads now--  to those specific comments and show that there invalid, I'm here for you, as I have bee for every ego that has ever attempted to engage me with the Cosmic Trinary Set that, begins with 0} Spirit-1, Meta-space, mind/intellect/concepts and ego, ergo concepts of Space, Time, God, Universe, Spirit, Dogs, Toyotas etc.

    You keep running from these obvious catagorical sets of truths.  Learn what a table of contents is in any good educational book. Then apply that to what Ive presenting in this thread and others involving your and at least one other new one, ---Revised Wholistic Set of Existence--  that had even more specifics and other ways of presenting the same concepts







    ebuc
    ebuc's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 4,920
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc's avatar
    ebuc
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @Math_Enthusiast
    The reason is that I respect your ideas, and want to learn from you. I can see that you have some interesting things to bring to the table. Try to have that same respect for me.
    Ok then first this ....Physical reality {is  an occupied space } " what is real " = energy { an occupied space }  = what we can humans quantise via iour nstrumentation ergo an occupied space. And to clarify for you, we believe Gravity and Dark Eenergy exist, however, we have not and may never ever be able to quantise them. Ok, understand? Ergo they remain  in Spirit-3 and Spirit-4 subsets of occcupied space as Meta-physical phenomena.

    If so you can see further below the fall in catagory of Space > occupied space > speifically defined as Meta-physical becaue not quantised by humans. This is laid out clearly in the table of contents as follows

    IVe also addressed your "Spiritual logicism" directly #9 and again below, til you grasp that is falls in catagory of:

    .......0} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that which exists beyond/Meta our finite, occupied space  Universe, and,

    beyond/Meta the macro-infinite, and truly non-occupied space, that,

    again exists beyond/Meta our finite occupied space Universe,

    ex abstract concepts of Space, God, Time, Universe, Toyotas, Concepts, Dogs, relative truth, absolute truth and false narrative, etc...i.e. abstract logic, common sense and critical thinking pathways of thought, or even  not logical, not common sense, and no critical thinking all fall in this 0} Spirit-1, Meta-space catagory. Simple

    So now we go back to top of the Table of Contents, of conceptual book entitled Cosmic Trinary Set:

    0} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts{ abstractions } and ego ergo, concepts of Concepts, God, Time, Space, Love, Dogs, Cats< Toyotas etc, are not actual space, ergo, have no mass, no charge, no color,  no spin etc. ok? Understand?

    ------conceptual line of demarcation clarifies distinction of the above from the below------

    1} macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space, that, is outside/Meta of ergo, embraces the following, catagory

    2} Spirit-2, 3 and 4, finite occupied space Universe,

    .. 2a} } Spirit-2, physical reality { energy } falls in catagory of Spirit-2 aka fermionic matter { energy }  and bosonic forces { energy } and yes there is new third catagory/set that is hybrid of those two,

    ...2b} Spirit-3, non-quantised,ergo Meta-physical Gravity (  ),

    ....2c} Spirit-4, non-quantised ergo Meta-physical Dark Energy  )(.

    First and foremost, what Ive tried to make clear to you, that whatever definitive descriptions of existence you have to offer, fall within this Cosmic Trinary Set { 0, 1, 2 }.  Do you understand that?  Ex lets say fermion, well fermionic matter is an occupied space of phyiscal realtiy { quantised } ergo, falls within 2} spirit and specifically 2a} Spirit-2.
    Math_Enthusiast
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 195
    0
    2
    7
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Math_Enthusiast
    0
    2
    7
    -->
    @ebuc
    I'm not sure how I'm the one disrespecting you, or how I'm the one with the big ego. I think that you have some very interesting and valuable ideas, and I took the time to actually look at them and try to understand them. You, on the other hand, clearly didn't fully read my posts. That would quite frankly be fine with me, except that you decided to simply declare that anything I could possibly have to offer will always be within one of your ideas. I'm not going to right a big long post again, because that is the only reason I'm fighting you on anything. We're talking past each other at this point. I have been interested in your ideas for some time now, and I've taken the time to understand them as best I can. I respect your ideas. I only ask that you respect my ideas too. It's like you said: Respect is a 2-way street.
    ebuc
    ebuc's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 4,920
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc's avatar
    ebuc
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @Math_Enthusiast
    The reason is that I respect your ideas, and want to learn from you. I can see that you have some interesting things to bring to the table. Try to have that same respect for me.
    If truly respect them then, --for the umteenth time--- directly address then, as I have done with you, to no avail.

    Ok then first this ....Physical reality {is  an occupied space } " what is real " = energy { an occupied space }  = what we can humans quantise via iour nstrumentation ergo an occupied space. And to clarify for you, we believe Gravity and Dark Eenergy exist, however, we have not and may never ever be able to quantise them. Ok, understand? Ergo they remain  in Spirit-3 and Spirit-4 subsets of occcupied space as Meta-physical phenomena.

    If so you can see further below the fall in catagory of Space > occupied space > specifically defined as Meta-physical becaue not quantised by humans. This is laid out clearly in the table of contents as follows

    IVe also addressed your "Spiritual logicism" directly #9 and again below, til you grasp that is falls in catagory of:

    .......0} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that which exists beyond/Meta our finite, occupied space  Universe, and,

    beyond/Meta the macro-infinite, and truly non-occupied space, that,

    again exists beyond/Meta our finite occupied space Universe,

    ex abstract concepts of Space, God, Time, Universe, Toyotas, Concepts, Dogs, relative truth, absolute truth and false narrative, etc...i.e. abstract logic, common sense and critical thinking pathways of thought, or even  not logical, not common sense, and no critical thinking all fall in this 0} Spirit-1, Meta-space catagory. Simple

    So now we go back to top of the Table of Contents, of conceptual book entitled Cosmic Trinary Set:

    0} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts{ abstractions } and ego ergo, concepts of Concepts, God, Time, Space, Love, Dogs, Cats< Toyotas etc, are not actual space, ergo, have no mass, no charge, no color,  no spin etc. ok? Understand?

    ------conceptual line of demarcation clarifies distinction of the above from the below------

    1} macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space, that, is outside/Meta of ergo, embraces the following, catagory

    2} Spirit-2, 3 and 4, finite occupied space Universe,

    .. 2a} } Spirit-2, physical reality { energy } falls in catagory of Spirit-2 aka fermionic matter { energy }  and bosonic forces { energy } and yes there is new third catagory/set that is hybrid of those two,

    ...2b} Spirit-3, non-quantised,ergo Meta-physical Gravity (  ),

    ....2c} Spirit-4, non-quantised ergo Meta-physical Dark Energy  )(.

    First and foremost, what Ive tried to make clear to you, that whatever definitive descriptions of existence you have to offer, fall within this Cosmic Trinary Set { 0, 1, 2 }.  Do you understand that?  Ex lets say fermion, well fermionic matter is an occupied space of phyiscal realtiy { quantised } ergo, falls within 2} spirit and specifically 2a} Spirit-2.

    Math_Enthusiast
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 195
    0
    2
    7
    Math_Enthusiast's avatar
    Math_Enthusiast
    0
    2
    7
    -->
    @ebuc
    If truly respect them then, --for the umteenth time--- directly address then, as I have done with you, to no avail.
    There's a reason I haven't been saying much about them. Because for me, the only reason I am engaging you in this is to try to get you to acknowledge that my ideas are not necessarily included in your ideas, because neither of us no everything. You have effectively said that anything I may think of, you have already thought of, which is very hurtful after all of the time and effort I have put into constructing my ideas, thus my accusations of disrespect. Anyway, I have been reading what you have been saying, as I discuss below. As you can see, I am directly addressing your ideas. Hopefully that makes you happy. I mean that sincerely.
    IVe also addressed your "Spiritual logicism" directly #9 and again below, til you grasp that is falls in catagory of:

    .......0} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i.e. that which exists beyond/Meta our finite, occupied space  Universe, and,

    beyond/Meta the macro-infinite, and truly non-occupied space, that,

    again exists beyond/Meta our finite occupied space Universe,

    ex abstract concepts of Space, God, Time, Universe, Toyotas, Concepts, Dogs, relative truth, absolute truth and false narrative, etc...i.e. abstract logic, common sense and critical thinking pathways of thought, or even  not logical, not common sense, and no critical thinking all fall in this 0} Spirit-1, Meta-space catagory. Simple
    Oh shoot! This entire time I thought you meant that your definition somehow included my definition. Now I understand that you just mean that it falls into that category. Yes. I agree. It does. I apologize for causing confusion.
    First and foremost, what Ive tried to make clear to you, that whatever definitive descriptions of existence you have to offer, fall within this Cosmic Trinary Set { 0, 1, 2 }.  Do you understand that?  Ex lets say fermion, well fermionic matter is an occupied space of phyiscal realtiy { quantised } ergo, falls within 2} spirit and specifically 2a} Spirit-2.
    Okay, after the first misunderstanding, I'm kind of wondering, do you mean whatever description of existence I have to offer, or any specific object which I might say exists? Please clarify, as it may mean the end of this infinite loop we're in. I thank you in advance for the clarification, and apologize in case I really did misunderstand what you said here.
    zedvictor4
    zedvictor4's avatar
    Debates: 22
    Posts: 12,067
    3
    3
    6
    zedvictor4's avatar
    zedvictor4
    3
    3
    6
    -->
    @ebuc
    @Math_Enthusiast
    Universe is,

    I think.

    And we are,

    An agglomeration of,

    Universal dots.

    I suppose.


    Happy Chocolate Egg Weekend.
    ebuc
    ebuc's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 4,920
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc's avatar
    ebuc
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @Math_Enthusiast
    Oh shoot! This entire time I thought you meant that your definition somehow included my definition. Now I understand that you just mean that it falls into that category. Yes. I agree. It does. I apologize for causing confusion.

    Bingo! All that you, other { includes me } have to offer, will fall within the Cosmic Trinary Set/Outline/Table of Contents etc in one or more of them.  Simple

    Then the Cosmic Trinary Set/Outline/Table of Contents has trinary sub-sets.

    0} Spirit-1, Meta-space has trinay subset of 0a} relative truth, 0b} absolute truth, 0c} false narrative, that, can be unintitional false narrative or intentional mixture of false and truth to mis-lead or mis-direct others. Ok? Understand?
    ----------conceptual line of demarcation---------------------
    1] > 1a} macro infinite, and truly non-occupied space, is also 1b] micro-infinite, and is 1c] shaped/formed where it  meets the outer nodal event surface of our  finite, occupied space Universe i.e. where the macro-infinite embraces our finite, occupied space and dynamic Universe Ok?  Understand?

    2} Spirit- 2, 3, 4 as our finite, occupied space and dynamic Universe,

    ....2a] Spirit-2 is physical reality ergo energy in two primary and instrumentally quantised forms,2aa}  fermionic matter and 2aaa} bosonic forces, tho, there is a new 2aaaa} hybrid set of these two, to that maybe can considered a trinary sub-set of Spirit2. Ok? Understand?
    ...note: observed time i.e. quantised frequency as a energetic paricles is associated with 0{ Meta-space pattering of a sine-wave /\/\/ or as ^v^v^....

    ...2b} Spirit-3, meta-physical { because not yet quantised by humans }  Gravity (  ) ---positive geodesic outer---

    ....2c} Spirit-4, meta-physical { because not yet quantised by humans, Dark Energy )(  ---negative geodesic inner---

    Note: above we have primary, trinary sub-set of  2 and of 2a. Ok? Understand?

    So once you grasp the above, then, we find we have covered all of the primary and 2ndary fundmentals of our most Wholistic Set of Existence, that includes 0} Spirit-1 Meta-space, 1} truly non-occupied space, 2} dynamic occupied space Universe. Ok? Understand?

    Now, whatever you want to disscuss, I can begin by knowing which one or more of the above catagorys ---table of contents-- were dealing with, and develop  more sub-catagories as they become self-evident, and/or with others input.

    Also, once you truly grasp the above, then I would direct you too Arthur Youngs ---inverntor of the Bell helicoptor---   Reflexive Universe site, to see that he and i used a similar starting point --four levels/lines of sequential numbers---  to come to similar ideas, but still differrent. And where his lead to primary set of seven, and sub-sets of seven, Ive found primary, trianary sub-sets that precede his seven-ness apporach.

    So Math Enthusiats so glad you and I are in less confusiion. Synergetic effect of two people working as a team is 95 more effective and effiecient.


    ebuc
    ebuc's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 4,920
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc's avatar
    ebuc
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @zedvictor4
    Zed, you know why the easter bunny hides his eggs?
    ~~~~o~~~~~o~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~0~~~~~~0~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    He doesnt want anyone to know, that, he has been messin with a chicken :--))