There are six sides to a cube, the numbers 1, 2, an 3, when added or multiplied together are equal to “6,” and the sum of all the numbers from 1 to 36 arranged in a 6×6 magic square are equal to the number “666.”
Who's the Dawn Bringer?
It's the Sun.
What do the electric entities claim?
That electro [electron] magnetic [electron particle property] is light? Electrons are NOT Light. That's the False Light. Another Greek name for the Morning Star is Heosphorus (Greek Ἑωσφόρος Heōsphoros), meaning "the dawn-bringer".
If you worship the Jesus of Revelation [The Bright Morning Star], you're a sun worshiper. The True Light is above the electric universe: at the Constant [waveless and particle-less].
"Like Jupiter, we are the ones.
All atoms, report to the sun.
Gods and fear, glass ceiling above and below,
Why are we here?
You were so sure we thought you would know.
You don't know!
Belief split to 4 like a cross on the floor.
It split front,
back and side from side,
like a cross Front,
back, side to side like a cross!
They called it God! I say the sun!
You call it god, I'll worship the sun.
Without all her fire,
there won't be anyone.
I wanna live like the red spot.
Winds 11,000 miles per hour, red red hot!
I want my storm to never, ever end!"
He who has the understanding can calculate the number of the Beast.
The Red Spot is the Red Sun. Look for China's red sun and you'll find it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqijfqecvA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeAvIfqAQbc
"666 is known as the number of the beast. It is also a triangular number because it is the sum of all the counting numbers from 1 to 36."
Electric Love: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7i0cYlIqmY
Faux Light, Fox Light
Let he who hath understanding calculate the number of the Beast
F = 6
O = 15 = 1 + 5 = 6
X = 2 + 4 = 6
Teacher: How is limit conditioned?
Andrew d'Entremont: Again, what the hell are you talking about?
Teacher: You didn't know that's how a relative reality is built? How come?
Andrew d'Entremont: "how is limit conditioned" isn't an intelligible question without context.
Teacher: What allows limit to manifest?
Andrew d'Entremont: Limit of what?
Teacher: Whatever is limited (defined) will have relative rather than absolute nature.
Andrew d'Entremont: Well, the limits of a thing are defined as part of the thing. It's not a separate quality.
Teacher: If it has size, it's relative. If it has mass, it's relative. If it has speed, it's relative.
Andrew d'Entremont: Ok. What does this have to do with anything?
Teacher: The Undefined is the Absolute.
Andrew d'Entremont: And if it's not defined you can't know anything about it, including whether or not it exists. As soon as you know something about it, it becomes. defined in some way.
Teacher: You have to think about the question: how can limit exist without something to limit?
Andrew d'Entremont: Which takes it out of the category of undefined objects and into defined objects. That also doesn't address things that are currently undefined but may be defined in the future.
Teacher: Yes, from non-relative to relative. What makes something relative a real phenomenon? You have to think about the question: how can limit exist without something to limit?
Andrew d'Entremont: It doesn't. That's why I said the limit of a thing is one of its qualities, because limit isn't a separate, external quality. Teacher: Spacetime isn't real?
Andrew d'Entremont: We don't define an ocean by everywhere. It isn't for the same reason. What do you mean it doesn't? "How can limit exist without something to limit" It doesn't.
Teacher: Okay, so what is the limit being placed on? How would you get a mile's worth of measurement? Don't you have to have more than a mile to start with?
Andrew d'Entremont: Well measurement is arbitrary.
Teacher: But that's beside the point.
Andrew d'Entremont: What I am saying is that you cannot have limit itself as a concept and nothing else.
Teacher: What is there besides limited phenomena and unlimited phenomena?
Andrew d'Entremont: I don't know of any unlimited phenomena.
Teacher: Where is the wall closing in space?
Andrew d'Entremont: I don't think there is one?
Teacher: How else could you limit it?
Andrew d'Entremont: The limit for that is what we can observe rather than an actual limit. There, the limit is our perception.
Teacher: How could space be stopped?
Andrew d'Entremont: I have no idea.
Teacher: Think about it for awhile. You'll realize it can't.
Andrew d'Entremont: No, you think about it for a minute. Is your ability to think of a way that it can't a sound reason to believe that it can't? That's fallacious reasoning.
Teacher: No that's the only way to realize. You can't just be told.
Andrew d'Entremont: There could be, I don't know, a giant cosmic eggshell around the whole damn thing. But that isn't reason to believe that there is.
Teacher: Then you'd have to deal with the outside of the egg.
Andrew d'Entremont: When I say space, what I mean is the void seen in all directions. That doesn't mean that it actually goes in all directions.
Teacher: How do you have an egg without an outside of an egg?
Andrew d'Entremont: I was making a nonsensical example to show it could be something beyond my ability to guess or speculate.
Teacher: I know, but it was good you brought it up. Nothing you can think of can limit space.
Andrew d'Entremont: But that gets back to perception vs actual.
Teacher: Can you perceive anything if space had no objects?
Andrew d'Entremont: I mean there would be at least one object.
Teacher: Why? Do you know what science discovered? Matter has wave nature. Waves can't be illuminated by light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave. So, that which conditions objects is in a information state (non-spacial, non-temporal). That which renders that information into perceptual form is our virtual reality simulator: the body. Critical thinking about everything you're told: making sure it can actually work, is how you realize things. Nothing you can think of can limit space.
Andrew d'Entremont: So what?
Teacher: It means you're in charge and Gods are imposters.
Andrew d'Entremont: ??? No it means that what I can and cannot imagine doesn't map to what does or does not exist.
Teacher: You hold in your hands the power to destroy all religions.
Andrew d'Entremont: I think you're getting at the brain in the vat problem.
Teacher: If the body is an avatar and there is only one energy (no souls) animating it, there's no tyrant allowed to be possible.
Andrew d'Entremont: A friend of mine came up with a better analogy though.
Teacher: Brains and vats are just information waves so you can't solve anything that way.
Andrew d'Entremont: Think of your mind as a bedroom and the external world as a foyer.
Teacher: Once you get to the essence: Unlimited and limited, you can get rid of a lot of ideas that aren't feasible.
Andrew d'Entremont: And the hallway been them is perception.
Teacher: The way I see it is there is fixed and non fixed information. Until it's fixed, it doesnt become a wave that can be converted into a perceptual phenomenon. Dreams are non-fixed. There's no way to determine object definitions because they're in flux. You leave a room in your dream and go back in and it won't be the same.And just like VR, this is probably only one (this reality) to be played from who knows how many? I'm guessing this particular game is how to have fun and freedom without it having been taken away from you by some invisible Law Giver. A psychological game.
Andrew d'Entremont: Okay. That's entirely speculation.
Teacher: We don't know where the game begins. Maybe a lot of history is just backstory.
Andrew d'Entremont: Speculation can be useful no doubt. But it's unless it's falsifiable what good does it do?
Teacher: There's a lot of speculation about the reality but there are also the conclusive facts: Undefined, defined and what the body reveals.
If you want to see everything I have to say, I have quite a bit of material on my website: It's in a sloppy format but that's because I'm lazy.
https://deathmetalbuddha.ca/ Wouldn't you expect the mind inside the avatar would want to produce what the mind does outside the avatar?
https://www.cnet.com/pictures/best-vr-games/. The fact that child prodigies exist falsifies the claim that intelligence comes from getting an education at learning institutions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oybU09RQUTs
Andrew d'Entremont: One of the points I was trying to make is that you really can't understand the "true" nature of reality, all you can do is deal with what your perception presents to you. It's like solipsism.
Teacher: You're claiming logic is useless.
Andrew d'Entremont: No not at all. To finish the foyer analogy, I was making earlier where your mind is the living room, the foyer is reality, and the hallway is perception. You can't bring a foyer through a hallway.
Teacher: What's the purpose of logic?
Andrew d'Entremont: The purpose? It's a tool. I don't think that's what you meant by that question though. Are you asking my thoughts on the ontology of logic itself? As in it what is it where does it come from. What is the tool used for?It's used for ordering your thoughts as correctly as possible. It's a tool for mind-use. Teacher: It's use is to expose error.
Andrew d'Entremont: Right, errors in thinking.
Teacher: Right.
Andrew d'Entremont: However, it's also a language.
Teacher: That's beside the point.
Andrew d'Entremont: No, it isn't. The point I'm getting at is that logic is entirely a mental construct. Just like language and mathematics.
Teacher: What isn't mental? We use logic because it works.
Andrew d'Entremont: To go back to the foyer analogy, logic is in the living room, not out in the foyer, it's on the mind side of the perception barrier Teacher: How did you determine that?
Andrew d'Entremont: Because logic, like language and math, is a descriptor. We use it to interface, through our perception, with reality. But it's like the map-territory problem.
Teacher: So, we can't know for sure what our nervous system functions as?
Andrew d'Entremont: Depends on how intellectually honest you want to be.
Teacher: I'll assume you're intellectually honest. What is its function?
Andrew d'Entremont: I just don't see the value in absolute certainty which is what "for sure" implies.
Teacher: It seems like you're avoiding to me.
Andrew d'Entremont: Well, I don't really see what the nervous system has to do with this.
Teacher: Then you shouldn't have a problem answering the question.
Andrew d'Entremont: We were talking about logic and why logic is a mental construct, an abstract rather than a real object.
Teacher: I can't help if you're resisting.
Andrew d'Entremont: The question in the way you asked it implied absolute certainty, which isn't reasonable. I can be reasonably certain what the nervous system is for but not absolutely. That's why I brought up intellectual honestly.
Teacher: Okay, what did that reasonable certainty come up with?
Andrew d'Entremont: What are you asking?
Teacher: You said you're reasonably certain about what the nervous system functions as. What is it?
Andrew d'Entremont: Perception. Without it, you can't perceive.
Teacher: Why can't you perceive without it?
Andrew d'Entremont: I mean, physically there's a lot more that it does but perception is the answer salient to logic, mind, abstracts and the etc.
Teacher: So, does it sound reasonable that the eye is what we see out of when examination shows us its an information input?
Andrew d'Entremont: Right. Perception.
Teacher: Waves (information) are received, brought to the information processor (brain) and rendered into a perceptual reality (three dimensional).
Andrew d'Entremont: Yep. Although I wouldn't define waves as information. Information is what you get from the processor. Not before. It's like how logic is a mental construct.
Teacher: Waves are what the information looks like in false space. Collapse the wave and you have it in its non-spacial form.
Andrew d'Entremont: Is a thing logical before it is perceived as such? What is false space?
Teacher: Perceptual space.
Andrew d'Entremont: I think we're running into a definition conflict here. I made a long response to your post but apparently you got banned or something, so you didn't see it.
Teacher: Information is differentiation. Waves have different frequencies.
Andrew d'Entremont: And it was about how you define information. That's what I disagree with.
Teacher: Whatever the brain understands.
Andrew d'Entremont: Interaction, in physics, informs. But that's not what I mean here. The brain understands whatever it receives via the nervous system.
Teacher: What is it receiving?
Andrew d'Entremont: When it comes to the mind interfacing with reality, I wouldn't call waves themselves information. I would call them data, or facts if you prefer and it is only after those facts are processed that they become information. I don't agree that information is inherent.
Teacher: Okay, but what is the nervous system bringing to the brain and understood by the brain?
Andrew d'Entremont: Facts or data. Synonyms as far as I'm concerned.
Teacher: What are the facts?
Andrew d'Entremont: I don't mean the facts colloquially.
Teacher: From your meaning, what are the facts?
Andrew d'Entremont: I mean that electromagnetic waves in the visible wavelengths are themselves facts, data being transmitted to the processor that allows perception to occur. ntil you see the light it's not informing anything, so it wouldn't be right to call it information. The light wave.
Teacher: Did you think light was electric or magnetic?
Andrew d'Entremont: It's both, as far as I understand.
Teacher: Oh, that's not what I heard. Those are electron properties.
Andrew d'Entremont: Isn't it called an electromagnetic wave?
Teacher: Right. Light is a misnomer.
Andrew d'Entremont: I just meant visible spectrum electromagnetic waves.
Teacher: 'Visible' means perception. Can perception move at the speed of light?
Andrew d'Entremont: Perception is the speed of our ability to process the data we receive from the receptor. Doesn't matter if we're talking about light or sound or any other sense. But perception isn't just the senses, it's the sum of our interface with the external reality. Which brings us back to how we got on this set of topics.
Teacher: If color is a perception, why do we call it light?
Andrew d'Entremont: Because language is messy and imperfect
Teacher: I'm using logic to show you how some claims are nonsense.Calling an electronic phenomenon light has no basis.
Andrew d'Entremont: Which claims?
Teacher: That an electronic phenomenon, the electromagnetic wave should be called light.
Andrew d'Entremont: I'm not really following you here.
Teacher: Maybe you'll have to think about it for a while.
Andrew d'Entremont: Light just colloquially means the visible wavelengths.
Teacher: But it's wrong. Light isn't electronic. How fast do you think waves move?
Andrew d'Entremont: Light is radiation. It is I might get this a little bit wrong because I'm definitely no physicist but it is photonic not electronic.
Teacher: How fast does radiation move?
No comments:
Post a Comment