Many of them believe that the brain is the cause of consciousness, so when the brain dies, consciousness disappears, is that true or what ❓We will see axiomatically (absolute truth).

Brain & Awareness

The first step is to make sure that:📌 Changes in the brain are the cause for changes in consciousness as the effect of the cause (brain)<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">👉 This asserts: changes in the brain lead to changes in consciousness</li></ul>

Brain as The Cause of Consciousness

The question is whether changes in consciousness can change the state in the brain ❓<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">Assumed, consciousness does not allow changes in the brain</li></ul>In simple terms, can "the brain as the cause of the effect (namely consciousness)", change its position to "consciousness as a cause for changes in conditions in the brain" ❓<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">👉 This does not mean that it violates logic, but rather it reveals an unknown viewpoint of axiomatic reasoning</li></ul>

Causality In Both Direction

📍In fact, meditation can reduce the structure of the amygdala in the brain📍Involvement of consciousness in daily activities, through conscious control, is able to change the structure of neurons in the brainHere it asserts that consciousness is capable of directly (meditation) and indirectly (through activity), having a position as a determining point (cause) for changes in the structure of the brain.

Interchangeable Causality

The status eventually needs to be updated that turns out to be:📍The brain is the cause for the alteration of consciousness as a result<ul><li>👉 The brain is the cause of altered states of consciousness</li></ul>📍Awareness can also act as a cause for changes in brain state as the effect<ul><li>👉 Consciousness is the cause of the changing inside the brain</li></ul>

🧩  If the two things, one to another, are alternately cause and effect on each other, then both are the effect of another other than the two things themselves.

Axiom

True relation in between brain & consciousness

Many of them believe that the brain is the cause of consciousness, so when the brain dies, consciousness disappears, is that true or what ❓ 📌 Changes in the brain are the cause for changes in…

Understand yourself and those around you.

psychology

Psychology

philosophy

Philosophy

scienceandnature

Science & Nature

I wanted to talk about dimensions from the axiom and geometry point of view.This is very good at demonstrating the precision of the axioms in looking at this issue.And the discussion of this dimension trains us to be careful in observing "existence" from the point of view of an ontology.We will look at the concept of dimension from an axiom point of view.Apart from them globally already knowing what & how to form dimensions geometrically, they still need to be seen from the axiom point of view, so that the thin boundaries can be seen.

Understanding Dimension

Although the way of seeing it was different, the result will be the same in between the axiomatic concept and the general concept. That's because the general concept was built through a valid - definite geometric system.The difference is only in translating different geometric concepts from the concepts in the axioms

The Difference

From the axiom point of viewLike I said, when I said "dimension" this meant the "effect" of God . Because God is not a dimension, but dimensions are inside God.

Dimension of Reality

We recognized the concept of dimensions since we were born into the world. And the concept of dimensions was formed through the reality of life which was the "effect" (creation) of God.

Divine Dimension

📍1 Dimensional geometry = line📍1 Dimension axioms = dotWhen there was "effect" ( a thing) for the first time, then without "existence" there could be no "effect". So the smallest was "existence"."Existence" as the minimal "a thing", certainly doesn't have any attributes, so it's the same in all directions, that's the point. So axiomatically "dot" more accurately represents the concept of "existence".But in the geometry version "dot" is considered null, empty, so the concept of "exist in the beginning" in geometric shape that were placed after the "dot" as a line, it's an absurdity

Dots or Lines

The "lines" have shown differences as there will be no minimum attributes.If you want to call "the dot" geometrically , it means it’s not a "dot" but "emptiness" outside geometry."Dot" actually already has a width (axiomatically), because a dot actually has a width the same we found on a line.The difference is that “the dot” concept is more precise because “the dot” does not show certain characteristics. And this more characterizes the initial concept of "effect" that is "exist" (previously no profile).The concept of "dot" in geometry was considered to be the beginning of all forms.

The Dot In The Beginning

At the axiom level, the beginning of all forms is a void, not a "dot", because the "dot" has a position next after the emptiness, in the sense that "the dot" already has a form.Only a matter of different concepts between axioms & geometry, but rooted in the same thing which is the "beginning" of all (before) changing

Dot at Axiom Level

Dot & Lines from The Concept of Dimension

Dot & Line

These are levels of reality from the very first degree, lower viewpoint to the higher viewpoint

DIMENSION - AXIOMS

🧩 The first dimension is the existence📍The dimension itself does not assert anything except about "existence" itself, because there is no comparison, so the dimension is only limited to "existence" which limits our perception without affirming how to limit our perception📍When there is more than one dimension, then there is comparison, thus confirming the differences about how “existence” limits our perception.

First Dimension

🧩 The second dimension is the changing of a thing that limits perception

2nd Dimension

🧩 The third dimension is the branching of changes that limit perception

3rd Dimension

​​​​​​​🧩 The fourth dimension is the continuity of existence that limit perception

4th Dimension

🧩 The fifth dimension is the sameness of existence that limit perception

5th Dimension

🧩 The sixth dimension is the difference as unity that limit perception

6th Dimension

🧩 The seventh dimension is the simultaneous changing of existence that limits our perception

7th Dimension

🔰 Time is a changing so that there are two changes in (limiting) our perception, namely time in the 2nd dimension, and time in the 7th dimension.Time is realized, when we realize the change and then compare it, the time appears.The motion of the particle is not realized until we are aware of the change by the motion of the particleUnless our point of view all aroud in any direction then the comparison of changes in motion does not escape our observation

TIME

🔰Time asserts changing that assert difference, therefore time in the second dimension confirms that the amount of change is equal to the amount of difference

Time In 2nd Dimension

🔰Time asserts changing that confirms difference, so time in the seventh dimension confirms one change for a number of differences

Time in 7th Dimension

Seeing Quantum Physics from 7 Dimensions Viewpoint

📍Dimensi itu sendiri tidak menegaskan apapun kecuali tentang "ada" itu sendiri, karena tidak terdapat perbandingan, sehingga dimensi hanyalah sebatas "ada" yang membatasi persepsi kita tanpa…

Einstein argued, nothing will faster than the speed of light in vacuum space (empty air).This makes sense, because when something travels through space unimpeded, it means that something is capable of reaching top speed, since there is no (or less) obstacle.

Einstein Was (Not) Wrong ❓

The problem was, there were those who argued that there were circumstances with speeds beyond the speed of light. And it was finally recognized globally through the Nobel Prize in Physics which confirmed that Einstein was wrong. That there were circumstances faster than the speed of light.

Nobel Prize

From God's point of view it is clear. God's will surely faster than the speed of light.Then, the problem. how to look at this issue from an axiomatic point of view (absolutely) which certainly does not contradict scientifically at any time and also certainly does not conflict with the principle of God's truth.So what is the format of the rebuttal? So that the disclosure (rebuttal) is undeniable.What is the format of the objection and what point of view is involved in affirming the absolutes regarding this issue ❓

Religion

This needs to be emphasized because this (for those who are critical) can be a problem. Atheists or other short minded people can twist this for the sake of the absurd (intentionally absurd)It is possible that developments regarding this issue can be twisted as "the existence of God" or even "the absence of God" which is supported by science. Well once again a complicated punch, like the "big bang" issue is not true. And other issues that are abused

Twisting The Truth

The fundamental question regarding the issue of "is there a speed beyond the speed of light?" is ...Technically speaking, "is there any speed which proceeds without any resistance and greater than the speed of light which is assumed to also proceed unimpeded "So basically... , how much does the absence of any other obstacle exceed the non-impediment of traveling at the speed of light

Beyond the Speed ​​of Light

So what does this have to do with Einstein's phrase "God doesn't play dice"?Einstein thought that if there was a speed exceeding the speed of light, it would be impossible. If the impossibility turns out to be not impossible, then according to Einstein the law becomes uncertain like playing dice.It's like one insistent (Einstein), the other is also adamant. For Einstein, his insistence is a sign of truth, and other rebuttals were considered by Einstein as things that refute the certainty of natural laws, which means that natural laws are uncertain - impossible. That's what Einstein meant.

GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE

<ol><li class="ql-align-justify">But the facts as a result of research showed that what Einstein thought impossible turned out to be not impossible. Is that proof of violating the laws of physics? Which means that the laws of nature are indeterminate?</li><li class="ql-align-justify">Or even if it is considered certain, the law of certainty changes. Dynamic scenarios? </li><li class="ql-align-justify">Or more fundamentally that nothing has changed, everything is certain, only Einstein who misunderstood the reality of the laws of physics?</li></ol>

Mapping Misunderstanding

Axiom🧩 Continuity of the effect is the work of a function that consistently causes one or more effects in a sequence of events, so that if there is no continuity of effect from a function, then the function is a possibility.

Continuity of The Effects

Axiom🧩 The continuity of the cause is the resistance of the function in maintaining its consistency as a function, so that if there is no continuity of effect, then the function exist as long as the continuity of the cause

Continuity Of The Cause

Axiom🧩 A continuity of effects emphasizes changes that show the speed at which the work of a function is completed, so that the more/less the continuity of the effects, the slower/faster the completion of the work of a function.Mapping📍In mapping the speed of light, the speed of light is the continuity of the effects perceived as propagation as far as the range of completion of the work of a function of light.

Mapping The Speed of Light to Axiom

Axiom🧩 A continuity of causes emphasizes changes that show resistance - consistency (age) of a function, so the more / less continuity of causes, the longer / shorter the consistency of a functionMapping📍In mapping the speed of change in quantum entanglement, quantum entanglement is a continuity of causes without any propagation of the effect

Mapping Quantum Entanglement to Axiom

Axiom🧩 Quantum entanglement emphasizes minimal changes between two things in one tap, so that there is no continuity of effects that can be perceived as propagation, but there is only continuity of causes that maintains the consistency of the quantum entanglement function itselfMapping📍Since the speed of light is a continuity of effects, and quantum entanglement is a continuity of causes, the two cannot be compared because of the unequal balance between them.

Inequality Comparison

Axiom🧩 Quantum entanglement emphasizes minimal changes between two things in one tap, so that there is no continuity of effects that can be perceived as propagation, but there is only continuity of causes that maintains the consistency of the quantum entanglement function itself📍This confirms that quantum entanglement does not have the property of propagating, so that quantum entanglement is not a speed that can match the speed of light, but that the two between quantum entanglement and the speed of light are contextual differences.

Then why do the two sides insist that they are the most correct ❓Where is the misunderstanding between the two sides ❓ Or it's not a misunderstanding but a failure to understand in between both ❓

Old Level Of Reasoning

That's because each of them saw it from the point of view of a non-quantum dimension. They were not used to understanding the quantum world, and their reasoning uses classical reasoning, not quantum reasoning, not quantum logic, yetThey thought that the influence between two things that were separated by a great distance, were two things that were mutually exclusive. So Einstein insisted that separation requires propagation that was impossible to exceed the speed of light which was considered (close to) barrier-free, while Einstein's opponents also insisted that this was the case (the fact)

Gap REASONING

Whereas? It is precisely it happened as Einstein emphasized, that as long as the effect of change between two things there was separation then of course it must be through propagation, and if there was a fact that quantum entanglement then it must not violate the principle of propagation. But they all didn't understand the reasoning behind this.

Gap Comparison

The true was that quantum entanglement does not involve propagation, so it was true as Einstein said, "nothing is faster than the speed of light". It's just that this statement hadn''t been converted to quantum logic formatIf this statement "nothing is faster than the speed of light" which was based on classical reasoning outside the quantum dimension, was converted to a quantum dimensional format, Einstein's truth will certainly be clear and can be accepted. This is how to do so .

Propagation Comparison

Classical Reasoning "nothing is faster than the speed of light"Quantum Reasoning "nothing is faster than the speed that propagates without resistance, unless the speed occurs without the process of propagation"

Classical vs Quantum Reasoning

Quantum Reasoning (Detailed): The speed in one tap, simultaneous changing one to another involves at least two things, then the two things were connected to each other, so there was no change or communication through propagationFrom this, it is clear that Einstein's statement "nothing is faster than the speed of light" is true as far as we understand the details of the issue.So Both Einstein's and the opposite, they were all true, only they used a language of reasoning that had not yet reached the quantum level.

Deeper Quantum Reasoning

It is possible that scientists now aware of the discovery of quantum entanglement, still stuck to the old reasoning, that "it has been proven that two things are separated at great distances and can communicate almost instantly". Even though the correct format of the quantum language is "it's proven that we can put two things unseperated at any distance"

Old Style Of Thinking

The key is thinking that quantum entanglement as instant communication over such great distances apart (separated one to another), then this is wrong. Because quantum entanglement does not emphasize separation but the continuity of communication (without pause) between two things.

Instantly No Separation

If quantum entanglement is considered to be the existence of separation between two things that are located at different locations that are far from each other, it can certainly seem to contradict Einstein's statement, even though, axiomatically it is a misunderstanding.

Pushing Old Style of Thinking

Because they were trapped by classical reasoning, and confused because couldn't map events at the level of quantum to their old reasoning, but the facts were proven, then the impression arosed ... "this was a miracle of the universe", "destroys the world of reasoning" ... "beyond reason" blah blah blah. Whereas classical true reasoning won't collapsed, it's just that they saw things from the old point of view,

What's the sensational of this kind of misunderstanding ❓

They were unable to make adjustments, which ... if they want to expand their point of view, it will be proven not to violate known principles of reasoning, but actually expand reasoning, and .. . , while still being able to feel the wonders of scientific discoveries, without being trapped in an absurd overlaps reasoningMany of them are misinterpreted because they are influenced by "seeing is believing", then suddenly, the deeper science was involved, the deeper went inside the reality, the harder it was for the senses. It's not really that hard to figure out.

Fundamental Gap

Because through reasoning, of course we can realize the logical consequences. it's just that the logical consequence, even though it is undeniably valid, is unsatisfactory if it can't be verified by the senses (out of control) this is where they get confused. Actually their reasoning had already given an answer but the "seeing is believing" (sensory evidence) wastoo strong to be forced on the issue.According to the senses "The two separate things be said to be inseparable". Inseperable ❓Where is the rope or the bridge ❓They didn't see, so it's their rebuttal.

Logical Consequence

BEYOND THE SPEED OF LIGHT

When do we think? A moment similar to when an animal was threatened. Either threatened to fulfill a desire or defend himself.How is it different from humans? ReasonableAnimal will is only limited to coercion as far as experiencing, real time action. While the human beyond experiencing. Meaning, that humans are able to plan an experience in the future.

ANIMAL THINKING VS HUMAN THINKING

Animals can think but their thinking is in a short term, while human thinking can be short term or long term.

Short/Long Term Thinking

This didn't mean that when human thinking was in a short term, then humans were animals. It's not like that. But it's the fact that God gave animals to think tactically. whereas humans can not only think tactically, but also can think strategically (through planning).

Tactical/Strategic Thinking

That's why humans can dominate animals, because humans also have tactical weapons through their tactical thinking to subdue animals

Domination

Even human's short-term planning is not categorized as the result of short-term thinking, but through long-term thinking that is able to plan short-term strategies to anticipate tactical steps from animals (which were even shorter than human short-term strategies)Human planning is still longer than animal short-term thinking.

Short Term Planning

Did animal have a strategy. No!Seeing a strategy in animals, it's not really strategy, it's short term tactical thinking.It's just that because the pattern is a "thought pattern", there is a resemblance to that in humans, "there are signs of thinking".And because through thinking humans can strategize to overcome situations, then when it was seen that animals were able to overcome situations with a pattern similar to human thinking, then it's said that animals could make strategies. No!Even though animals could think like human , it's just that animal thinking has limitation compared to human.

Tactical & Strategic

This thin characteristic makes researchers suspect "animals could think as we did" hehe. It's old story... they just about knew lately. Too late then, hehe. So don't be overestimate, since actuallly it's because the thin line was invisible.The thin line? Animals cannot plan their own future experiences, whereas humans can.So any pattern of behavior seen in animals in dealing with situations similar to humans (can be taught, can choose, can count blah blah blah), actually has limitations that are far from those of humans.

Thin Boundary

How far for animal thinking compared to human?

This is my conversation with Artifical Intelligence. This AI using advanced system GPT-3.In this question-answer style, i used new style of conversation. It’s based on philosophical style. But this kind of conversation is not regular type of philosophical thinking, it’s beyond philosophy, it’s meta philosophy.Although mostly they had no fixed standardisation of how we do meta philosophy, but i have my own concept of how we do meta philosophizing. It’s by philosophizing using axioms.Mostly they thought, axiom must be related to math. The fact is that axiom can be found on any area of our life.

Axiomatic Conversation

In fact, in physics known as postulate, lower than axiom in math. But some of them can be converted into axiom. This asserts that there are some law of physics have absolute degree as axiom in math, such as “law of energy” (energy can’t be destroyed and can’t be created, can only be changed to a different form).If we can start to initiate the way we do philosophizing using axiom (outside math), then in the future, scientist won’t depend to math just to support their physics theory. Since using axioms, scientists have confident to assert their own theory as axiom.

Axioms as Universal Truth

In this case i will show you applying axiom on conversation with GPT-3. Not just involving axiom but the way i did thinking also based on axiomatic structure of thinking.Mostly on GPT-3 were failed to did conversation with axiomatic reasoning. But i did try to guide the conversation, so that GPT-3 AI knew its failure and made great adjustment.

Failure & Adjustment on GPT-3

I did this to show you that AI GPT-3 was great, but there is still one tiny weakness. AI can’t tackle axiomatic reasoning, it’s because the system has no high rank corpus (axiomatic). It can be accepted since philosophy in general didn’t know what axiom was.They did thinking by trying to find consistent truth without notice that there are high rank beyond consistent truth, axioms, as universal truth.Through this conversation, hopefully we have new awareness of how important axioms truth (non mathematical) to elevate AI to a highest level of thinking, so that we get benefit from AI even better.

General Philosophy

Another benefit of inserting corpus based on axioms, this will put AI having standarisation to identify the boundary of the truth, so that using AI + axioms, we can unpack the mystery of life, universe, quantum and so forth without being trapped by paradox & contradiction anymore.Bottom line? We can see things as is, we can see the farthest boundary of the truth, so that we can use these to make proper consideration closer to a fairness.

Corpus Based on Axioms - Benefit

<a href="https://metaphilosophia.tumblr.com/post/692099758083457024/seremonia-gpt-3-axiomatic-conversation">Axiomatic Conversation</a>If you wish to provide axiomatic corpus, i am here <a href="https://t.me/MetaUniversa">Meta Universa</a>

artificialintelligence

Artificial Intelligence

Seremonia & GPT-3

Have you ever heard the true meaning of Data Singularity? Don’t look to the other sides, just look at here.

It’s like defining something. A definition is never complete, just contextual.When we define something, it must involve all the possibilities that exist.Example: what is philosophy? Love of wisdom? Contextually correct but not 100% correct. How?Defining what philosophy is, in a perfect way, must be clarified 100%.

Imperfect Definition

That means, philosophy is:<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">loving wisdom,</li><li class="ql-align-justify">doesn’t mean eating lunch,</li><li class="ql-align-justify">doesn’t mean singing children’s songs,</li><li class="ql-align-justify">doesn’t mean chewing gum,</li><li class="ql-align-justify">doesn’t mean drinking coffee,</li><li class="ql-align-justify">doesn’t this & that, … blah blah blah.</li></ul>That’s how it should define something perfectly. All possibilities must be ascertained.If so, then we can never define precisely? Yes!

Perfect Definition

Similarly when someone claims that his reasoning system is complete? It can’t be?That any reasoning formula that has been successfully programmed into a computer to be able to simulate artificial intelligence to match humans? Again, it can’t be. Helping humans? Yes it’s possible, but conquer human? Nope.Because the reasoning formula of any logical system is like defining reality in a narrow way. So only have a limited point of view.

Narrowing Point of View

Then, how can artificial intelligence be able to dynamically approach human analysis? HOW MUCH MORE FORMULA IS NEEDED? OR IS THERE A SINGLE FORMULA?THERE IS NO SINGLE FORMULA! So how many formulas do you need? IT NEEDS AS MANY DIMENSIONS OF TRUTH & DETAILS. WHAT? ️Yes, it takes trillions trillions trillions of logical systems beyond all of them.Beyond Aristotelian logic, induced logic, what else? Beyond symbolic logic? Beyond “Sequent Calculus” Logic? Beyond what’s more? Beyond Boolean logic, Venn diagram logic, tautology? YES, YES & YES!

One or Trillion Formulas

Then how can we do it? If viewed from the singularity, there is indeed a single system, namely the axiomatic system, but how many axioms involved? As many facts as there are. What does that mean?Every axiomatic truth is actually a logical system. So how many items of the reasoning formula are there? As many as axiomatic truth about anything that exist - happening.SO WHAT KIND OF THE SIMPLE LANGUAGE, PATTERNS OR THE MOST ADVANCED REASONING SYSTEM CAN WE USE? HEHEHE …

Quanta Logical System

Just one, CONTINUOUSLY SUPPLYING AXIOMS,INJECTING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITH AXIOMATIC TRUTH.Then does that mean we never thinking at all? Yes.So the best we can do? By not thinking. But imagining - deep empathy, so that suddenly we will downloading axioms. This is where animal unable to do it

Injecting vs Thinking

Remember, formula is just narrowing our point of view. So to liberate our point of view, by rejecting all formulas and accept quanta truth of all possibles that exist

Beyond Thinking - Out of The Box

So, the future of artificial intelligence?No longer needed: RNN, Transformer, Bayesian, Aristotle Logic System, Sequent Logic, and so forth.However, artificial intelligence relies entirely on axiom data as much as the problem at hand, or if not? Then the simulation of intuition will always be impossible, and? Don't expect artificial intelligence to be able to philosophize, except just predicting.No axiomatic data supply? Artificial intelligence is only able to generalize statistically, not generalizations as they are.No axiomatic data supply? AI is only able to see reality incompletely.

Future of Artificial Intelligence

Simply Put, It's Axiom

Data Singularity

DATA SINGULARITYHave you ever heard the true meaning of Data Singularity? Don’t look to the other sides, just look at here. [[MORE]]Imperfect DefinitionIt’s like defining something. A definition is...

DATA SINGULARITY

The one that has an all-encompassing point of view, then everything is clear without a doubt and thus has no choice

Beyond

Axiom: Awakening

How can something be absolute, in the case that relatively is only a point of view, and state of being is absolute?Issue:fluorescent light patterns that tend to be contrasting can cause photosensitive epilepsy, while for some people, fluorescent light creates a festive mood that doesn’t cause any disturbing symptoms.

Relatively or Absolutely?

Example:This is relative, where a situation has a good impact or it can also have a bad impact, so it is not absolutely true?<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">So, the luminescence pattern brings good (joy)?</li><li class="ql-align-justify">So, the luminescence pattern brings badness? ️</li></ul>Which one is correct? Relatively? Or not!

The Same Cause, Different Effects

The pattern of luminescence has a negative impact on certain people in certain circumstances which are very different from other people’s circumstances. This is absolute!When it is said that the pattern of luminescence has a different impact, it does not have a bad effect, it has a good effect on the others, this does not indicate a relative symptom of truth. Stay consistent - absolute.

Consistency

The cause and effect remain consistent, but commonly known for the same cause with different results. But actually, the same cause gives the same effect. Why? Again, due to the weakness (narrowly, inaccurate perception of) our point of view.Supposely our observations were accurate, then different effects (some had epilepsy, some didn’t) actually came from different cause.

Inaccurate Perception

Indeed we saw the same cause (the pattern of luminescence), but actually there were other things as the hidden (unknown) causes gave tangible effect, so that the results will be different.<ul><li class="ql-align-justify">the 1st person who pokes the ball from a certain direction, then a ball will bounce in a certain direction,</li><li class="ql-align-justify">but why the 2nd person who pokes the ball from the same direction as the 1st player will bounce the ball in a different direction?</li></ul>

Factor X - The Unknown Cause

If this bouncing ball was repeated many times in the same direction, absolutely the ball will bounce the same direction, it couldn’t be different! Then where is the relatively? It’s because, we couldn’t see the detail accurately, so we didn’t understand that there were other situations from different 1st & 2nd people that affect the way we hitted the ball at the same direction, so the results were different.

The Same Causes, Same Effects

But even my circumstances changing and won’t be the same from time to time, so indeed two effects are never found to be the same so it is also true that no equal effect comes from different causes.

The Different Cause, Different Effects

If the 1st person & 2nd person have perfect equality of conditions, then the result of the reflection will be at the same directionLogically, it can be assumed that if the 1st & 2nd person are perfectly identical, then it’s just the same pointing to one of both and the result will absolutely be the same.A simple example: when I did this, the result would be the same, when you did it, the result will be different. However, when your work was done by me, yes, of course, that was the result that characterizes me.

Absolute Truth

ABSOLUTE TRUTHTruth Is Absolute… How can something be absolute, in the case that relatively is only a point of view, and state of being is absolute? Issue: fluorescent light patterns that tend to be...

ABSOLUTE TRUTH

True or false is due to comparison, while relative is due to different points of view

How do we see in between right or wrong and relatively true or relatively false?Simply put, absolutely having no choice, being in one condition. On the contrary, relatively means being in a different state among several possibilities.

Absolute & Relatively

What is wrong or right depending on comparison but having no relation to “relatively”. So, being under certain quality (condition) is not necessarily right or wrong. We didn’t see the right or wrong of our circumstances.The right or wrong of our situation occurs after we see the unworthiness of our situation compared to other circumstances.

True or False

Hard obstacle or easy living just relatively a way of life, a life style. One sided relatively unique style, on the other side relatively an adventure.These qualities (hard, soft, firm, loving and others) can be relative states and those don’t mean as bad or good things. It just relatively different sight seeing of situation. But when those qualities being compared, the quality has a new attribute, worthy or not worthy.In a short, it’s relatively different qualities to a different perception, but it’s true or false since it’s worthy or unworthy

Quality

And what does relative true mean? it is a different degree of truth or true state, so that relative true cannot jump to falsehood, but it is still within the limits of true.Relatively true means that it is still within the limits of eligibility, and relatively wrong means less eligible.So “relatively” itself shows the degree of perfection of our perception of the diversity of qualitiesWhereas associating “relatively” with the feasibility then it shows degree of trueness or wrongness.

Relatively True

Relatively is degree of acceptance, degree of nuance. It’s the intensity or degree of perfection. How far you can see the world, in any sense of seeing.While true or false is degree of benefit, profit or loss.If you can see anything as is but other people may see differently. You saw things clearer than the other. It’s just quality of our perception.

Even more simpler ...

It’s red, strong red, less red. It’s good, less good. It’s less true, trueness. It’s less wrong, exactly wrong. It’s really bad, less bad. Relatively bad.Relatively True doesn’t mean it’s False. It’s just less true but it’s not falseRelatively Bad doesn’t mean it’s True. It’s just less bad but it’s not trueBeing bad then it’s relatively bad. Being good then it’s relatively good

Examples for Relatively

When someone said: it’s good for me, but it’s relatively different to you. It doesn’t mean there are good & bad, but only degree of goodness (less good)Saying it’s good for me but for you it’s relatively bad. It has to be considered that there were relatively good & relatively bad.

Brain & Awareness

Dot & Line

7th Dimension

BEYOND THE SPEED OF LIGHT

ANIMAL THINKING VS HUMAN THINKING

META Seremonia