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.: Betkas, Kažkas?, Niekas, Padalinimai, Troškimai?, Dievas, Vienybė taip pat: UniversalWholenessMath

Viskas yra mūsų santvarka (gamta) ir taip pat Dievas už jų, už visko. Tad viską galima dviprasmiškai suprasti, sausą be Dievo ir šlapią su Dievu, su dvasia. Tai teorija (savo paskiru požiūriu už santvarkos, kad ir Dievo požiūriu, neišėjusiam už savęs) ir praktika (kuria esame viena, Dievas išėjęs už savęs).

===What is Everything?===

{{AndriusKulikauskas}}: Everything is the most basic structure. Everything is the anchor concept. When we need absolutes, as we do if we wish for answers, then we may turn to everything as the anchor for all our concepts.

===What are the properties of everything?===

Everything has four properties.

  • Everything has no external context. Everything includes any context that we find for it. If everything is put in a box, then it includes the box. If I think of everything, then it includes me.
  • Everything is the simplest algorithm, it accepts all things. Whatever one thinks of, one puts into everything. We may think of different things, but the algorithm is absolutely the same. So we know that we are talking about the same everything.
  • Everything has no internal structure. Everything can be thought of as chaotic, or as orderly. All predicates are equally uninformative: everything is hot, everything is cold, everything is good, everything is bad. Everything has no internal structure onto which predicates could map meaning.
  • Everything is a required concept. We are aware of this concept, and cannot get rid of it. There is no analog to everything in the world, because the world is bounded, but everything is not. If we cannot learn this concept, then we must have always had it.

Everything is that which gives unity to these four profoundly different properties.

===Related concepts===

I associate Everything with {{God}}, but we consider this same structure in a variety of ways, as: the universe, ourselves, meaning, existence, and so on.

Everything, as structure, is the division of everything into one perspective: the {{Onesome}}.

Everything makes our perspective {{Absolute}}. It is helpful in providing us with an absolute structural reference.

===Wishes of Everything===

What describes our subjective experience? Representations of Everything

  • Everything that Wishes for Nothing Everything is self-sufficient. We have needs, and operating principles address our needs.
  • Everything that Wishes for Something Everything is certain. We have doubts, and counterquestions address our doubts.
  • Everything that Wishes for Anything Everything is calm. We have expectations, and emotional responses address our expectations.
  • Everything that Wishes for Everything Everything is loving. We have trials, and life choices address our trials.

Dievas ir viskas

See also: NullsomeVOnesome, {{Understanding}}

The distinction between {{God}} and {{Everything}} is subtle and profound. It is the distinction between everything as structure, and the spirit behind it. I think this is the subject of Lao Tze.

God likes everything. He wants all variants. Do I like this? How does it seem to me?

As humans, we are bounded, and we take everything as our point of reference. Alternatively, God takes himself as his point of reference.

We are imagining God's perspective, and so we may look beyond everything to an outlook from which everything may unfold.

The point of view of Anything is the stage which Everything has created for its own participation of every sort. Here it makes sense to make a subtle distinction between God and Everything, as they have different implications, like an answer and a question. - "Everything" is that which was alone, and then took up the challenge to go beyond itself, and to create situations where it is, and where it is not, and consider whether it arises. Everything is the ultimate question. - "God" as that which arises from this challenge, which demonstrates its necessity by arising even from the least favorable situations. God is the ultimate answer. "Everything" and "God" get related through us and our world. This is the source of slack, this distinction between Everything and God. Technically, this is an equation "God is the unity of the representations of Everything". The representations are the many ways of thinking about, and the unity is the unique way of caring about them all. Coherence is another way to say "unity of representations". God is the coherence of Everything. The Answer is the coherence of the Question. What creeps in here is the concept of slack, that fleeting gap between the Question and the Answer. We've presented two very different ways of thinking about this slack, it can be increasing (as in the case of the questioning), or decreasing (as in the case of the answering). Slack has precisely these two representations, we think of it as either increasing or decreasing. "Good is slack", in other words, good is the coherence of slack, good is the unity of the two representations of slack. Everything has exactly four representations. - Everything wishes for nothing, is self-sufficient - Everything wishes for something, is certain - Everything wishes for anything, is calm - Everything wishes for everything, is loving These are the four different ways of thinking about the entirety, and God is the unity of these different ways. We can add slack to each of these representations of everything:

  • Everything is self-sufficient, has no needs, but with slack there could be needs!
  • Everything is certain, has no doubts, but with slack there could be doubts!
  • Everything is calm, has no expectations, but with slack there could be expectations!
  • Everything is loving, has no trials, but with slack there could be trials!

We can likewise add everything to each of the representations of slack:

  • Slack is increasing, in the face of any question, but with everything it faces Everything, an Ultimate Question.
  • Slack is decreasing, in the face of any answer, but with everything it faces God, an Ultimate Answer.

"Good" is the fact that this is the same slack. The concept of anything brings all this together! This is because we think of anything as either everything with some slack (by which everything can be related to the "anything" that faces us), or as some slack in the face of everything (by which anything can be related to the "everything" that faces us) . Every way that we think of anything, we are defining it in terms of choices that we are making regarding it.

  • In the face of needs, we're driven to choose "No"
  • In the face of doubts, we're driven to choose "Not Yes"
  • In the face of expectations, we're driven to choose "Not No"
  • In the face of trials, we're driven to choose "Yes"
  • In the face of answers, we're driven to choose to "Not Choose"
  • In the face of questions, we're driven to choose to "Choose"

We're driven to choose, in each case, because that kind of choosing is the only activity that maintains our independence. These are the six representations of Anything, in which are embedded the four representations of Everything, and the two representations of Slack. Life is the unity of these six representations, Life is the coherence of Anything. Life is the drive to choose. What is the whole point? "Life is the fact that God is good". The coherence of Anything is the fact that Everything and Slack are coherent together. Whether Everything or Slack are coherent separately is an additional question.

===Examples and Analogues===

ChristopherLangan writes of the set of all sets.

Viskas yra medžiaga. Materializmas:

Philosophical Materialism, Richard C. Vitzthum Yet neither Lucretius, d'Holbach, nor Buechner claimed that materialist philosophy was an empirical science. They all realized it rested on assumptions that were ultimately metascientific, though never metaphysical in the Aristotelian sense. That is, the assumptions of materialism reached beyond empirical science, though never beyond physical reality. These metascientific assumptions were, first of all, that material or natural reality formed an unbroken material continuum that was eternal and infinite[1]. Nature had no beginning or end. It was an eternal, self-generating and self-sustaining material fact without any sort of barrier or limit zoning it off from a nonmaterial, non-physical, or supernatural type of being. The only foundational being there was, was material being, and some kind of natural substance underlay all visible phenomena. Lucretius called this endless fact of material being the "All," and with d'Holbach and Buechner concluded it lacked any plan or purpose and consisted of blindly opposing forces locked in an ultimately self-canceling, cosmic equipoise or gridlock.

Žr. Fenomenologija - ko plačiau suskliausti.

Law of Forms

Holistic Mathematics. Hi Andrius

With respect to the points you are making, maybe you are aware of Peter collins and his site on Holistic Mathematics (http://indigo.ie/~peter/integral.html)

Of particular interest are papers he has, seemingly unindexed from

http://indigo.ie/~peter/F39.htm where the 39 may be replaced from 10 to 39


See: GoingBeyondOneself, Everything

LackOfSelf is God's self (his lack of self) which is Everything.


[http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm Introduction to the CTMU]: The real universe has always been theoretically treated as an object, and specifically as the composite type of object known as a set. But an object or set exists in space and time, and reality does not. Because the real universe by definition contains all that is real, there is no "external reality" (or space, or time) in which it can exist or have been "created". We can talk about lesser regions of the real universe in such a light, but not about the real universe as a whole. Nor, for identical reasons, can we think of the universe as the sum of its parts, for these parts exist solely within a spacetime manifold identified with the whole and cannot explain the manifold itself. This rules out pluralistic explanations of reality, forcing us to seek an explanation at once monic (because nonpluralistic) and holistic (because the basic conditions for existence are embodied in the manifold, which equals the whole). Obviously, the first step towards such an explanation is to bring monism and holism into coincidence.

{{HelmutLeitner}}: A representation of the universe as something like "a system of objects" is a highly formalized abstract model of the universe. This doesn't change when the language model is something like "the truth is in the wholeness". These two view aren't really contradicting each other. Any such simple language expression must be a gross simplification, a construction of the mind that doesn't yet hold knowledge about the universe.

Pradžia - išeities taškas

For many years I've worked from a "starting point" - Everything. I've also thought of working backward from an ending point, somehow related to God, but only now feel good that it might be "Life is the goodness of God", and also what I wrote about Eternal life. I find this fruitful.

  • {{Everything}}
  • {{Life}}
  • EternalLife

Do these relate to LevelsOfUnderstanding?

Matematika mus moko, kaip besąlygiškumą reikšti sąlygomis, o tai įmanoma sąlygiškai. Žr. Math for thinkers

In seeking to know everything, we first wonder, is it possible to know anything? In other words, are there any absolutes?

{{Everything}} is important as an absolute {{Concept}}. It is absolute in the sense that we all have it, it is well-defined, and for all of us it is the same. It is an absolute in our society in the sense that, upon inspection, we all do individually admit and recognize this concept. It is absolute for us as individuals, and pragmatically, it is absolute for us as a society.

Everything is an anchor concept in that, accepted as an absolute, it serves as a ground for other concepts, possibly all other concepts.

Apparently, as we develop as people, we find our own DeepestValue which serves as our own everything. We can therefore communicate with each other regarding our own key concept.

Our potential is fulfilled by our ability to live with absolutes. This happens when we are able to love that which is completely independent of us. In this sense, we are commanded to LoveGod. We are to BePerfect and to do what we do without distinctions towards others.

Our ability to [LoveOther love others] is a move in this direction, as is our ability to [LoveSelf love ourselves].

Our ability to live by absolutes comes about through ConstructiveHypotheses that we take up.

JosephGoguen: 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)).

Dievui netinka citata, kurią Gadamer priskirai Goethe: Everything is a symbol. Iš tikrųjų Goethe rašė: Alles vergangliche ist nur ein Gleichnis. Visa, kas laikina, yra palyginimas.

See also: Conditional, BeingOneWith, God, Everything

===What is Unconditional?

  • Not Defining Theory.
  • Not self-limited.
  • Not requiring the satisfaction of any Definition.
  • BeingOneWith beyond the perspective of NotBeingOneWith, thus prior to it.
  • The quality of BeingOneWith that is left upon removing all conditions.
  • God.
  • that from which all things unfold.

The Unconditional [GoBeyondOneself goes beyond itself] into the Conditional.


Naujausi pakeitimai

Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2015 spalio 15 d., 11:18