Juodraštis? FFFFFF

Užrašai EEEEEE

Klausimai FFFFC0

Gvildenimai CAE7FA

Pavyzdžiai? ECD9EC

Šaltiniai? EFCFE1

Duomenys? FFE6E6

Išsiaiškinimai D8F1D8

Pratimai? FF9999

Dievas man? FFECC0

Pavaizdavimai? E6E6FF

Istorija AAAAAA

Asmeniškai? BA9696

Mieli dalyviai! Visa mano kūryba ir kartu visi šie puslapiai yra visuomenės turtas, kuriuo visi kviečiami laisvai naudotis, dalintis, visaip perkurti. - Andrius



Žr. Visaregis

A first question to consider is, What does it mean to KnowEverything?

And after that, WhyKnowEverything?

Then it is possible to explore How to know everything?

In order to make more progress on the latter question, I should pursue further the first two.

Even so, as I describe in my {{Overview}}, I have found that all the various structures that I encounter seem to arise from TheChainOfViews, an alternation of human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view. How does that relate to knowing everything?

I think the chain of views describes how life appears from my perspective as a human.

But to what extent is that not simply my own perspective, but valid for others?

And to what extent is that an absolute perspective in the sense that it is part of God's perspective?

The answer may be pragmatic in that it may depend on constructive hypotheses. Yet I feel that it should be possible to find an answer.

I think that this is related to the question, How can I take up God's view? How might I take up God's view of a human's view? Can I see what God sees when God looks through my eyes?

===Might an indefinite view take up an definite view?===

Might an unlimited view take up a limited view? We can suppose that this is possible - this is a ConstructiveHypothesis - and we can leverage this hypothesis. Indeed, we may express our reasoning in terms of such {{Suppositions}} and develop from them an AlgebraOfViews.

In particular, this may happen through BisectingAView.

The approach is to start with human's view of God's view and then separate the two views and switch them around. (As with switching from knowledge=truth of concepts to God=concept of truth). The focus is to understand the effect of the human view so as to discount for it. This involves separating the two views so that they are grounded independently.

This may be related to the following idea:

Limited view of unlimited view = all from (for all), unlimited view of limited view = one from (there exists)

A definite view may position itself, as a lost child, so that pragmatically, it is taken up by an indefinite view.

Note that this is related to the {{Associative}} rule: Is it the case that a (definite view of an indefinite view) of a definite view is the same as a definite view of (an indefinite view of a definite view)? And how can we know?

In other words, how can we know that the CompositionOfViews is {{Associative}}? Or what ConstructiveHypotheses must we assume? And how do we apply them?

See also: {{Overview}}, WhyKnowEverything, howToKnowEverything, {{Omniscope}}, GlossaryOfStructure, {{Knowledge}}, {{Everything}}, {{Understanding}}, {{Absolute}}, {{Andrius}}

AndriusKulikauskas: My aim is to know everything and [UsefulApplications apply that usefully]. See my {{Overview}} of my thinking so far.

What does it mean to know everything?

  • to have an {{Unbounded}} view, an unlimited view
  • to have a {{Complete}} {{View}} of all {{Knowledge}}
  • to have an unrestricted view, direct access to all knowledge.
  • to know the {{Truth}}, all of the truth, the whole truth
  • to be God's lens onto everything, his {{Omniscope}}.
  • take up that position, and so might all of good will, where one could see what God sees if one were farsighted as God is. Such an outlook is unlimited and therefore central. It is a vantage point from which we can appreciate the whole, and as we wish, venture forth to inspect any matter. It is, so to speak, to sit in God's lap. Likewise, God would see what we see if God were similarly shortsighted.
  • to take up that perspective for which everything serves as a framework. In this sense, everything is the structure of {{God}}, and God is the spirit of everything.
  • to look out upon everything from a perspective which, if we had God's farsightedness, we would indeed see every thing.
  • to have a perspective that is {{Absolute}}, {{Relative}}, {{Shared}} and {{Subordinate}}.
  • to know 'every thing'.
  • to position myself in that vantage point from which (if I had God's farsightedness) I would indeed see everything.
  • to be able to not just 'know anything' but to be able to know, in particular, that vantage point from which I can know anything, looking out on all dominion.
  • to sit in God's lap, and look out with him.
  • to appreciate in what sense all things are true. God is interested in the context for truth, whereas we are interested in what is true and what is false and too often simply presume our own context.
  • to find that position from which all statements are true.
  • to be conscious of what God is conscious. This very much relates to my friend John Harland's (a fellow grad student from UCSD) theory of consciousness. It's actually simple but very powerful: You simply consider the statements relevant to some domain and the ability to check if they are true or not. Something is conscious if it shares this "Turing test" type ability - but this is crucial! it is with respect to that domain. (I suppose also the ability to reflect upon oneself or another being that it is able to apply such tests. I suppose this accords with the operation +3 that I think of as consciousness, by which I think we add three perspectives (to a division of everything) so as to allow for such a generic "other" (such as ourselves but also others) who can make such tests). So there is a huge partial order of consciousnesses that accords with the many domains out there. As a practical example, he's interested in how a deaf person might be able to "see" sound in an intuitive way, this should be possible.
  • What did this mean to me in my childhood? I imagine it comes from being a very nearsighted child (us not realizing that until much later though) and so considering "knowing" to be not the same as "seeing". I have memories of a game where I would take chess pieces to the far side of a room and then go away and try to remember what they were, and then go back and check. Apparently, I may have played that when I was crawling. This kind of 'knowing' also suggests how a person's and God's views can coincide. So the end goal is to take up that vantage point and in that sense "share" God's vision (and I think he likes to share) and then be able to know 'anything' by crawling up and inspecting it, and then going back to the middle of the room, so to speak. I seem to recall a game that I played as a toddler, perhaps even when I was crawling, because I was nearsighted. I would crawl across the floor and leave a chess piece, then crawl away, and then crawl back. I imagine that this was a memory game as I was nearsighted. The chess pieces were like tokens in a register, and I imagine that I would try to remember them, and perhaps even do some sort of calculations, mental gymnastics. So I think by knowing everything I meant the ability to sit in the middle of the room and crawl out, as needed, to check on the answers.
  • to express God's understanding of the human in a language that a human can understand. Key to that language is the relationship between {{Love}} and {{Understanding}}.

===What does it mean to KnowEverything?===


What do I mean by KnowEverything? That is a hard question in and of itself!

{{God}}, {{Human}}, {{Observe}}, {{View}}, {{Sensitive}}

To know everything is to see what {{God}} sees when he looks through us. It is to see through our eyes in the way that he does. It is to be {{Sensitive}} as he is through us.

{{Unified}}, {{Familiar}}, {{Unobstructed}}, {{Complete}}

Such a {{View}} is:

  • {{Unified}}, in that it is all pulled together into one perspective, as if standing in the right spot that might encompass all things
  • {{Complete}}, in that it reaches absolutely every possibility even if that relationship is simply potential
  • {{Familiar}}, in that it expresses everything in terms of us, and what is most basic and fundamental to us
  • {{Unobstructed}}, in that it is not hindered or limited by knowledge, but rather sees through it

Note that the familiar may be understood to define a gradation with regard to unification, and the unobstructed may be understood to define a gradation with regard to completion.

If one is to KnowEverything, then one seeks a perspective that is:

  • {{Absolute}}
  • {{Relative}}
  • {{Shared}}
  • {{Subordinate}}


To know everything is to access our full potential. It is to have a completely unobstructed view. This is so ambitious that it suggests:

  • that we leverage God's point of view to the extent that we can, and make this endeavor relevant to him (we may seek
  • that we hope that God does what he can to make this endeavor possible for us (we may seek completion)
  • that the obstacles we face are primarily due to our own shortcomings (we may seek the unobstructed)
  • that we tend to avoid the relevant knowledge, and yet it is so close to us (we may seek the familiar)

The quest to know everything emboldens us to ponder what is important to God among that which is familiar to us.

What would knowing everything mean to us?

  • One of the ways to look out is through those "key concepts" that we, as independent thinkers, back ourselves into, as whatever we deem to be the deepest. So, for example, John's is "the experience of life" and mine is "living by truth". These are like stars in the sky, each person a witness to a concept, and we know that that person can bring us so promptly to the intuition relevant regarding that concept.
  • asking God
  • a structural machinery that generates absolutely all routes. That is what I'm looking for, the structural routes, but there will also be, in practice, non-structural short cuts that leap to the matter. We'll be able to inspect as much of the path as we like, however.
  • a structure for eternal life, a bridge from that world out into this one. Imagine rotten corpses going back in time and receiving a spirit, now that's a thought. Or the whole direction of time being reversed and headed towards the Big Bang and whatever's beyond that.

WalksOnTrees are perhaps important as they combine both unification, as the tree has a root, and completion, as given by the walk. In college, I asked God what kind of mathematics might be relevant to knowing everything, and I understood him to say that walks on trees where the trees are made of the elements of the threesome.

What do I mean by {{Everything}}?

By {{Everything}} I mean that concept which has no external context, has no internal structure, is the simplest algorithm - accepts all things, and is a required concept. Everything serves as the anchor for the {{Absolute}}.

Why know everything?

I think that knowing {{Everything}} would be useful because we may then know what to do, and how to live, and we may apply ourselves to the fullest. With such an outlook, we simply add to our life, and give it deeper and broader meaning, for all aspects of our life help us know everything.

As John Harland says, we can spare a person to work on it.

Can we know everything?

Many have told me that nobody can know everything, and that I need not try. They speak with great confidence, but I suppose, without any experience. If they spent one full day trying, with all their might, then I imagine they might think differently.

In fact, I think that we can hardly know {{Anything}} if we can't understand how it fits with everything. Whereas my quest to know everything has brought much knowledge, and much of that useful.

Can we know anything?

Is it possible to know anything? In other words, is there any knowledge that is {{Absolute}}?

What do I mean by know? Is it the same as {{Understanding}}? See also {{Knowledge}}.

What are useful applications?

See PracticalConsequences.

What are the practical consequences of knowing everything? I think they are apocalyptic in the sense that the truth would be tangible, like the Holy Spirit in flesh, and we could know the answers to everything that we might ask, but they might be quite involved. And ultimately we would rely boldly on our own instincts. And the honest people would accept this, but any who are not honest would be devastated by such a reality.

Is it good to know everything?

I do not feel that {{God}} requires such endeavor. But I do feel that God is sympathetic, and Scripture lets me be bold.

  • Solomon asked for "an understanding heart to judge your people, that I may be able to discern good and evil", and God said "behold, I have given you a wise and an understanding heart; so that there has been none like you before you, neither after you shall any arise like you." ([http://www.ebible.org/bible/web/1Kings.htm Kings 1])
  • Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. [...] I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under the sky. It is a heavy burden that God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with. I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and a chasing after wind. ([http://www.ebible.org/bible/web/Eccl.htm Ecclesiastes])
  • Love justice, you who judge the earth; think of the LORD in goodness, and seek him in integrity of heart; Because he is found by those who test him not, and he manifests himself to those who do not disbelieve him. For perverse counsels separate a man from God, and his power, put to the proof, rebukes the foolhardy; Because into a soul that plots evil wisdom enters not, nor dwells she in a body under debt of sin. ([http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/wisdom/wisdom1.htm Wisdom NAB])
  • Resplendent and unfading is Wisdom, and she is readily perceived by those who love her, and found by those who seek her. She hastens to make herself known in anticipation of men's desire; he who watches for her at dawn shall not be disappointed, for he shall find her sitting by his gate. For taking thought of her is the perfection of prudence, and he who for her sake keeps vigil shall quickly be free from care; Because she makes her own rounds, seeking those worthy of her, and graciously appears to them in the ways, and meets them with all solicitude. For the first step toward discipline is a very earnest desire for her; then, care for discipline is love of her; love means the keeping of her laws; To observe her laws is the basis for incorruptibility; and incorruptibility makes one close to God; thus the desire for Wisdom leads up to a kingdom. If, then, you find pleasure in throne and scepter, you princes of the peoples, honor Wisdom, that you may reign as kings forever. Now what wisdom is, and how she came to be I shall relate; and I shall hide no secrets from you, But from the very beginning I shall search out and bring to light knowledge of her, nor shall I diverge from the truth. ([http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/wisdom/wisdom6.htm Wisdom NAB])
  • Give me Wisdom, the attendant at your throne [...] dispatch her That she may be with me and work with me, that I may know what is your pleasure. [...] For she knows and understands all things, and will guide me discreetly in my affairs [...] For what man knows God's counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends? [...] Or who ever knew your counsel, except you had given Wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high? ([http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/wisdom/wisdom9.htm Wisdom NAB])
  • Wisdom sings her own praises [...] Come to me, all you that yearn for me, and be filled with my fruits ([http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach24.htm Sirach NAB])
  • Let us praise him the more, since we cannot fathom him, for greater is he than all his works; Awful indeed is the LORD'S majesty, and wonderful is his power. Lift up your voices to glorify the LORD, though he is still beyond your power to praise; Extol him with renewed strength, and weary not, though you cannot reach the end: For who can see him and describe him? or who can praise him as he is? Beyond these, many things lie hid; only a few of his works have we seen. It is the LORD who has made all things, and to those who fear him he gives wisdom. ([http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach43.htm Sirach NAB])
  • God allowed Satan to test Job, until Job cursed the day of his birth. Job challenged God to explain himself face-to-face. And God did come and say, "Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" and many such questions. Yet the wrath of God was against Job's friends for their false counsel regarding God. God told Job that he had spoken rightly, and blessed him, and gave him twice what he had before. ([http://www.ebible.org/bible/web/Job.htm Job])
  • Jesus Christ spoke: Ask, and it will be given you. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and it will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives. He who seeks finds. To him who knocks it will be opened. ([http://www.ebible.org/bible/web/Matthew.htm The Sermon on the Mount])
  • Jesus Christ, just before his death, spoke: I have yet many things to tell you, but you can�t bear them now. However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. ([http://www.ebible.org/bible/web/John.htm John 16])

JosephGoguen: I have often thought that your goal to, "know everything and apply it usefully" sounded a bit far fetched, until your post explained what you meant by "everything" - a concept, not a concrete collection in the world (so maybe it should be in quotes ('..') in your goal statement?). Your detailed explanation makes it clear that your understanding of 'everything' is actually close to the Buddhist understanding of sunyata (in Sanskrit, often misleadingly translated as just 'emptiness' or 'nothingness' but also often explicated as 'fullness' or the 'fullness of emptiness'). Nagarjuna is the most cited philosopher for this area of Buddhist thought.

Buddhists also find the absolute in sunyata, saying that the world is all relative and non-absolute, but the emptiness of the world is absolute. There are also a traditional theory of knowledge and a logic based on the viewpoint of sunyata, for which one might consult the book by Stcherbatsky "Buddhist Logic" (this email is not a good place for such details but Google can find some interesting links (of variable quality)).

{{Andrius}}: Consider sitting in God's lap and relate that to the Lamb and the Throne in Revelations 5.


  • EndeavorLeader=AndriusKulikauskas
  • EndeavorTeam=
  • EndeavorSummary=I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully. See my Overview. I'm currently working on understanding the big picture as to how God, I, You, Other are related. Your meditations on that might be helpful.


Imagine the mind as a wildly gyrating crystal into which you may cast a question, like a ray of light, and it reflects it as an answer. Now imagine such a crystal that was so pure and complete that it might serve God as his oracle. A sort of mirror, mirror on the wall.

That crystal would be so transparent that God could look through it with his view and also see how it effects his view and account for that. And it would allow him to appreciate his own view and escape the effects of his own view.

This would be equivalent to having two intimately related views - a transparent view that is so open it allows everything to view through it - and a truthful view that bears faithful witness to what it sees. These two views - if kept separate but held the same - yield the infinite loop above. They allow any view to escape its own effects because they report on any discrepancies caused by the unlimited view when it places itself between the transparent view and the truthful view.

This is, in some dual sense, the same as switching everything around, so that now the role of the oracle is given by God and good held separate. This string of views yields all the structure that I am aware of.

In this way, we may think of God as our mind, our oracle, by which we may understand everything.

Žinoti nežinomybę

To view the unknown is to know everything.

It is to view the {{Unlimited}}, the {{Indefinite}}.

AndriusKulikauskas: My wish is to KnowEverything and apply that usefully.

If we knew everything, then we would know what to do.

Kam viską žinoti?

See also: KnowEverything, howToKnowEverything

AndriusKulikauskas: My wish is to KnowEverything and [ApplyKnowledgeUsefully apply that usefully]. I wish to [LevelsOfUnderstanding understand].

{{Andrius}}: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/307 June 2, 2003]

Andrius: >> So this is rather satisfactory, and I will consider what this >> might suggest further about the big picture.

Arthur A. Vanderbilt wrote: > What is your aim in this Andrius? Have you discovered the structure > for everything and are struggling with a means of imparting it? > Or are you working to discover truth through these means?

Hi Arthur!

I want to know everything, and apply that usefully. Probably because I don't have anything better to do.

Right now I'm working to discover the truth, although I think I have a good idea of large parts of it. I feel like I am working on a jigzaw puzzle for all of human life. I look for missing pieces, anything new from any corner of my life. I look for patterns of how these separate pieces fit together. And I try to understand the entirety, and keep reinterpreting, keep repositioning myself, so that it all comes into focus. In doing so, I find it helpful to imagine God's point of view.

At this point, I feel that I have a rather complete set of basic pieces, and a pretty good view of the overall picture. This is because I have been rather active in considering all the basic questions in life, and I see that the basic structures keep recurring, and I don't find many sources for new ones. Also, I have had some success in organizing all of the basic structures in a way that seems self-complete. An older version of my notes is at http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/understanding.html and now I'm using TheBrain to reorganize them further.

Right now, I am trying to find the right vantage point for everything to come better into focus, so that I can see where it generates from. Recently I realized that there may be six vantage points and that I have only one of them, expressing everything in terms of definition. But even that might be a good start, I think.

> What do you practice, aside from contemplation / mentation, to > discover this truth? > > Arthur A. Vanderbilt [aav]at[well.com] http://www.no-hit.com

I use just about every method I can think of. One is imagining God's point of view - what would motivate me to generate anything? how would I set things up so that humans might figure it out?

Also, I try to look at aspects of human life that I am overlooking. I think that the deepest truth must be given in the most obvious places, and these are the places where we aren't looking, and don't want to look.

The Ten Commandments is one such place. So my intuition says that it is a gold mine for truth. I also look for recurring structures, especially structures that can be defined with regard to an entirety which includes us as well. So the thought that this might match a fundamental structure that I have found elsewhere is a great motivation. But in any event, finding an absolute grounding for issues like murder, lying, stealing, etc. is profound.

We have now participants from quite a variety of world views, both personal and religious, so I am very interested how we think of such things (and other basic questions).


Naujausi pakeitimai

Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2014 birželio 13 d., 11:12