Someone and nothing say: Logic is a formal discipline. If Savannah is larger than Washington, D.C., but smaller than Smalltown, USA, then Washington, D.C. is smaller than Smalltown, USA. That is a true statement. It doesn't matter what the terms Savannah, Washington, D.C., and Smalltown, USA actually mean, or how big they really are. If we just swap those terms for A, B, and C, we get a more formal version: If A is greater than B and less than C, then B is less than C. And that holds true for any A, B, and C. So, basically, logic abandons the idea of truth—as in the "correspondence between words and reality"—and focuses solely on the formal consistency of statements.
hollowpilot9: What you’re writing there is just one pragmatic, limited definition of logic. Formal logic has long been nothing more than a playground for philosophy departments! Savannah, Washington, D.C., and Smalltown, USA are just our anthropocentric concepts used to say A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, simply because that’s how we perceive things? But from what vantage point are we looking? If we look from C toward B, C is always larger than B, regardless of how much we try to convince ourselves logically that A is larger than B. Why? Because there is a distance of space and time between A and B—by the time we look at B, all of A might have vanished. Or if we move from B toward A, both A and B might change in size during the journey. They can't remain identical! That applies to linear logic. As for non-linear logic, this whole ABC relationship you're citing doesn't even apply, because in a non-linear system, A, B, C, and D are always the SAME. If one is searching for philosophical truth, it won't be found through formal logic. Later on, you claim to be the first to suggest that logic isn't the most important element of speech. Sure, but you have to specify which logic you mean? Your logic and your wife's logic (assuming you even have one) aren't the same, and the logic of one contradicts the logic of the other, as well as their own individual logics. That is the logical catch of logic! I've already written about where formal logic has led us. We teach our children and ourselves that 1 : 2 = 1/2, while the entire universe seems to be laughing at us. For a philosopher to reach Truth via a logical path, they must structure logic to mirror the logic of reality, rather than philosophizing based on some imagined "philosophical" logic. What appears as a paradox in traditional philosophy is actually an inversion today. One entity, or one phenomenon, is paradoxical to another. But there is a massive difference between whether that paradox is "jagged" or if it is complementary. Just take the traditional concept of opposition, which today has almost no connection to common sense. The concept of opposition was something only the most ignorant philosophers could have dreamt up! You mention "logically grounded mathematics"? Such mathematics doesn't exist, precisely because all mathematics is paradoxical—or rather, complementary. It isn't even logical that 1 : 2 = 1/2!! It would be logical if 1 : 2 = 1/2 + 1/2. However, that flies in the face of our "common sense," which I’ve already pointed out is actually a "sick sense." You also bring up Gödel's theorems. Those are the very theorems that show mathematical logic is fundamentally different from the logic we've grown accustomed to and believe to be correct. Look up Gödel's mathematical cipher and compare it to the cipher of a DNA molecule, and everything will become clear. In that context, multiplication isn't multiplying, but rather division is multiplying. It's the exact opposite of our traditional logical common sense. Truth lies in the inverse, not in what we perceive to be truth. This is why modern neuropsychiatrists say negative perception is the triumph of consciousness. A philosopher should know that the world is seen upside down, not the way they think they see it! It's a fact that philosophers avoid—I don't know why. "But in this way, since we are ignorant, we will first want to examine our opinions in relation to one another: what they actually are and whether they agree with each other or disagree entirely... When that is the case, what else is there to do but calmly, like people who have plenty of time, reconsider again—without getting angry, but truly exploring ourselves—what these phenomena are within us? (Plato, Theaetetus)"
I'll sign off on that, with one small addition: we are perhaps a bit smarter and more knowledgeable than our predecessors, even those called Plato.
Dent a says: I don't have any clue what this is supposed to mean.
Look, your take on how I feel about smarter people is just your take—so please, let’s just drop it.
You aren't being fair—then again, neither are you "intellectuals" with your own crowd, and there aren't many of your kind around here, I think. If you're in Rome, act like a Roman.
hollowpilot9: It's fair enough for you to admit you lack any natural knack for this. Well, you have your opinion and I have mine. From what I can tell by reading your posts, you're one of those textbook intellectuals. I already suggested you go talk to people who actually speak your language—people who get you and who you actually understand—instead of bothering me, since it seems we're both just talking past each other anyway. What's the problem with that?
grimReaper says: we're all tetrahedrons.
hollowpilot9: Even our teeth are tetrahedral shaped—especially the canines!
Kevin Jackson says: Yeah, there it is—that classic "I know more than you" defense. Honestly, your post is practically a textbook collection of logical fallacies. Want me to list them? You’re busy belittling me—acting like I'm just playing the intellectual role—and then trying to use the sheer number of people who agree with you as proof that you're right... yeah, those all have specific Latin names in any standard list of logical errors. :-)
I already tried walking you through the flaws via email—remember that? You gave up after two days and pivoted to this authoritative, condescending tone. :-) So, look, without questioning my intelligence just because I might not use the exact jargon you prefer, tell me: what exactly is non-linear logic, and what are its actual foundations?
hollowpilot9:
As usual, you've managed to write absolutely NOTHING. And yeah, I think you *are* playing the intellectual because ever since I started reading you, you haven't actually said anything intellectually stimulating—well, not by my standards, anyway! Every single one of your posts is just this same brand of sarcasm and mindless commentary without any substance. If you actually want to engage in a debate, the bare minimum requirement is to actually quote the sentence you're responding to. Clearly, you aren't capable of that, so instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks—which, let's be honest, you've been doing since day one. (And am I the only one, or are there others like you out there?) I'm not nearly as foolish as you seem to think, so for the sake of my supporters, I'll say this once more: I don't deal in formal logos, traditional logic, or the kind of knowledge you just memorize from textbooks. I rely on my own autonomous insights, reached through authentic and original investigation. If someone understands what I'm saying, great; if they don't, well, good luck to them. But I simply won't tolerate someone "spitting" on my work based on whims and zero arguments. It's a cycle. When I defend myself against attacks, you try to paint me as the aggressor. That's exactly what you're doing. We don't agree, you don't agree with me, so please—just move on.
I've already explained the difference between linear and non-linear logic. I'll repeat the basics just for the sake of principle: the foundations of non-linear logic are quantum wave physics, polarity, complementarity, synchronicity, the hologram, and universal tetrahedrality and quaternary nature. I'm speaking from the position of the singularity, from the position of the origin, from the position of complementary logos, inversion, and creation—concepts that, to you, apparently sound like complete gibberish. That's probably why you attack; you don't understand what I'm writing, and it seems your nature won't allow anyone else to be smarter than you—though, for the record, that's never been the case with me. Unlike you, I actually find everyone to be quite intelligent, including you. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt your academic knowledge at all, but I've made it clear: I'm just not interested in "schoolbook" knowledge anymore. So, here's a suggestion: go argue with the academics who operate at the level you belong to, rather than wasting time with me. Was I being fair to you in saying that?
DJ_Beli12 Truth doesn't have a home in the subjective—not even within the concept of a LIAR. The residence, both the space and the substance of Truth, exists within the Singularity.
And what exactly is your evidence for that? No hard facts provided, yet you're asking me to just take your word for it...
hollowpilot9: First off, I appreciate the communication style. Quoting someone properly before commenting, or actually asking for an argument... what am I supposed to back it up with? If I weren't capable of providing arguments or supporting my viewpoint, then I’d just be talking nonsense. So, here is my answer. I have a "million pieces of evidence" at my disposal; I’ll just pick a few that seem convincing, understandable, and credible enough for anyone.
We function through optical impressions and visual perception. Every single image of the world from the dawn of time until now—no matter how large or small, or how many there are—has passed through the human eye. In our eye, much like in a camera lens, there is an optical focus, which acts as the boundary between the positive and negative images. At that optical focus, all the positive images of the world condense into a "single point" where they vanish, and from which the negative image emerges—which is essentially a total inversion of the positive. Any experience, or any realization, made solely from the perspective of either the positive or the negative, is subjectively positive or negative; it’s a half-truth, or simply a falsehood. It’s only from the position of the focus—that point where the positive inverts into the negative and vice versa—that the Truth of both the positive and the negative reveals itself.
What I've said regarding optical perception applies on a cosmic scale to a Black Hole. I described this in a thread about DOGMA, using physical principles recently showcased on TV regarding "Land Art."
Of course, a massive field of evidence lies in magnetism and the inversion of magnetic poles—or poles in general.
That point of inversion is the Singularity!
I think that should be enough to back it up. Traditional concepts of truth and lies are superseded by non-linear quaternary perception, and that perception tells us that traditional positive and negative are actually inverse relationships: positive/negative and negative/positive. Do you need more proof?
Kevin Jackson says: So, if the internal forces of a planet or meteor strikes result in hills arranged in a specific way that reminds you of pyramids, you see "order"? Fine, then every hill everywhere should have those weirdly specific ratios.
The human brain is hardwired to connect dots—we’re absolute pros at hunting for patterns even when there aren't any. What you guys want to believe (including that picture book for adults that is absolutely riddled with logical fallacies) is just a craving, but unfortunately for you, there’s zero basis in reality.
Arguments like "but I've studied this for years" or "I know more than you" aren't going to fly here. You really need to step back once in a while and actually check the facts you've been taking for granted. Until you do that, hollowpilot9, you're just wandering around in your own little virtual world of ideas. Kiki sends her regards ;-)
hollowpilot9: Ever since I've known you, you've just been talking off the top of your head! What do you actually know about my knowledge regarding the Golden Ratio or those golden Creator things? I definitely have more info on this than you have physical weight. If anyone is wandering aimlessly, it's you—because not a single one of your points holds water, let alone a thousand arguments. You're just stroking your own ego, trying to convince everyone that your view is the only one that matters. It would be classy if you pointed out at least ONE logical fallacy instead of just generalizing and talking nonsense. Besides, who exactly AUTHORIZED you to be the JUDGE OF LOGICAL FALLACIES?? As for the picture book, others say it's something brilliant, something unprecedented—they consider it the world's first visual philosophy. They see that the authors of this book are hundreds or thousands of people from all over the globe, marked with an "C", yet you're sitting here trying to "trash" it. It won't work, Kiki, so maybe just drop it. If you're going to play the intellectual, you should probably learn the difference between linear and non-linear logic. You're stuck using outdated linear stuff, while I'm using modern non-linear logic—which, from the looks of it, you don't quite grasp.
The truth doesn't have a home within anything subjective—which means it certainly doesn't live inside the concept of a LIAR. Its home, both its essence and its actual substance, is found within the singularity. If you're wondering what that actually entails, we’ve already broken down the singularity over in the thread regarding "dogma" and how we interpret Kurzweil. Think of it this way: a singularity in the cosmos is essentially a black hole, and that represents the truth universe. The truth exists, sure, but I'm talking about Truth with a capital T—not just some little "truth" where I tell you my version of things and you decide to lie to me, or vice versa.
Anyway, the golden ratio, the golden section, the golden triangle, the golden tetrahedron, and the golden spiral—they all fall under the most widespread proportion found in nature. I won’t bother listing everything from the pyramids in Giza to the nautilus shell or the proportions of the human face and body, but I’ll offer a few thoughts on this "GOLDEN" phenomenon as I see it. It seems pretty obvious nowadays that the tetrahedron is essentially the universe's elementary fractal. From that, it follows that the tetrahedron itself—or rather, the triangle that makes up its faces—contains an inherent RATIO AND CONNECTIVITY between its center of mass and its vertices. You can see this clearly in the spiral that connects the center of a triangle to its vertices in a golden triangle. That spiral is the exact same one seen in the NAUTILUS. If you take such a spiral and plot it within a golden section parallelogram ABCDEF, you’ll notice the origin of the spiral sits right where the vertices of the triangles formed by the intersection of diagonals BD and CD meet. The relationship between BFC and AED is defined by phi, or 1.61:1. As for what kind of intelligence early humans used to uncover this? Only they know. But my take is that their knowledge had nothing to do with what we call "knowledge" today. Honestly, I suspect their understanding was far more advanced and truthful than our own; I mean, despite all our heavy scientific instrumentation, we still don't actually know *why* the golden ratio is 1.61:1 instead of some other number. This hunch leads me toward the tetrahedral logos and the construction of squares described by the golden spiral, because each square—acting AS A STEP IN THE SPIRAL—implies a circle defined by the constants PHI and Pi. In this context, Pi isn't just the ratio of a radius to a circumference; it's 3.142 squares away from every square in the golden ratio. The image Matthew Moore5 shared illustrates exactly that, but it’s not just about phi. Both phi and Pi, along with the tetrahedron, carry cosmic significance because they outline the relationship between the elementary and the universal fractal—the TETRAHEDRON. We have to remember that this is the fundamental shape among Platonic solids. You can see this universality quite beautifully in a certain children's picture book. The origin is the phenomenon and the concept that ties all of this together.
Erica, you're spot on—phi is fascinating, much like the "Golden Ratio" itself. But we have to remember that both phi and Pi are essentially ratios, not just standalone numbers. They’re just markers for a specific relationship between things. Take Pi, for example; the standard way we teach it is as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius, but is that really the only—or even the most accurate—way to look at it? I suspect not, and you'll get a better sense of what I mean once you get your hands on that >. Think of it this way: Pi is actually something else entirely, like three whole units—say, three squares with sides equal to the circle's radius—plus an extra 0.142 of a fourth unit. That tiny remaining bit in the fourth unit can be perfectly pinpointed by where two inverse circles of that same radius intersect within that fourth section. It feels like a completely fresh, and frankly, the only logical way to interpret Pi. Something similar applies to Phi, though it gets a lot messier because we're dealing with inverse tetrahedrons, right?
quest says: hollowpilot9, this is seriously, seriously good... uhm, what I mean is, I think 😳 this is incredibly close to my own understanding of how things work. when binary base units join together, they create the four-dimensional space/time continuum and its entire composition. Awesome !! Besides that, the way you link the DNA model to creationism is something I dig—I do similar work myself, though the context is slightly different, but still—it makes sense to me. 👍 Look, if I can summarize this a bit, you’ve arrived at a realization that could be accepted as a model for existence within our known universe. However, we aren't done there because we hit a wall—we're missing the "why"—the reason things are this way and the purpose behind it. And that's where you call upon a creator, someone who holds the keys to that part, and someone we might actually be able to perceive ourselves, given enough progress... ...maybe we disagree here because I’m more inclined to believe there isn't just one supreme creator, but rather that we simply fail to perceive a higher level—the fifth dimension (any thoughts on what that would actually look like?) and then the sixth... because everything that proves the existence of the 4th dimension (space-time) to me suggests that, logically, there must be three, two, or who knows how many other dimensions (1+n). I mean, even Hawking is getting a bit worked up with his speeches about 11-dimensional space... All I’m trying to say is that I don't see a necessity for introducing a "Creator" figure, and regardless of whether we succeed or fail at putting forward the right theses, we won't have the answer until at least—well, death. And only then will we truly "see." Through some strange logic, my vision actually implies there is a continuation after death (remember that premise about consciousness being spread across the universe?) despite the fact that I deny His existence. All I can say is that while we strive to uncover the secrets of life and existence, I’ve always been deeply convinced that the greatest truths are the simplest ones, because beauty always follows simplicity. And if anything, my recent insights are confirming exactly that. In fact, my ideas are so simple that I’m often embarrassed to share them, fearing people will dismiss them as—trivial. hollowpilot9: Thanks for finally giving me a positive response and recognizing what I'm getting at. It’s a vital observation regarding the universal logos of creation, of creation happening at the DNA level. But perhaps that itself isn't quite as sensational as the fact that this creative principle, or logos, extrapolates onto the macro levels of the world. It seems to me the most important thing is to notice that the DNA creative logos exists as a concept in other civilizations too, and then there is Hofstadter's crucial observation in his book Gödel, Escher, Bach, where he reveals the four-fold principle of creation found in the works of Bach, Escher, and Gödel. After that, a series of observations developed showing that the creative logos of DNA is truly universal. My own observations contribute to this as well. I completely get your point, because the question of MEANING is the core of it all. I don't find any other meaning beyond what we find in the biology of the world: TO BE CREATED, TO LIVE LIFE, TO CREATE—TO ENGINEER A NEW BEING OF THE SAME KIND AND SOMETHING MORE THAN ONESELF. It feels like that is the PURPOSE of everything, including us. Moving toward the origin and realizing a new origin in the future is a crucial realization for the modern age. It represents the maximum reach of anticipating and achieving THE START OF A NEW WORLD AND A NEW HUMANITY. Religion solved this long ago through other mental frameworks: God at the beginning and God at the end. Or, to put it more discursively: Origin at the beginning and Origin at the end. I distinguish between an anticipated (imagined or predicted) creator, as it seemed to be in the distant past, and the actualized, real creator. In my view, the big problem is that in the interim, the creator has been placed in some sort of extra-territorial position, under the concept of the supernatural, even though the creator has always been real—as real as a human being, like a Pharaoh or Jesus. Through the mind, man maps out and replicates NATURE in its broadest sense into INFORMATION ABOUT NATURE, while simultaneously developing and demonstrating immense creative ability. Therefore, one can only conclude that the CREATOR is actually MAN evolving toward the ABILITY OF SELF-CREATION, analogous to what we see on the microscopic biological levels. In any case, it's an INNOVATION (there have been various interpretations over the years about how humans are skilled in cosmic affairs, not just earthly ones) because for the first time, it's clearly stated that through evolution, Man and humanity are building a macro-biological entity—a MACRO-ORGANISM that I've tentatively named HOMOTERAS. When it comes to how we perceive dimensions, most of us stick to that standard Euclidean view—you know, length, width, height—which usually gets broken down like this: length equals a one-dimensional space length plus width (a plane) equals a two-dimensional space length plus width plus height equals volume Following that logic, trying to wrap your head around a fourth dimension is basically impossible. That’s why Einstein steps in and introduces TIME as the fourth dimension of space, which—honestly—just creates a massive mess. This mess would stay just that—a mess—forever if we hadn't noticed that the POINT itself is what actually dimensions space. So, instead of those old Euclidean definitions, we should probably look at it this way:
Point A is a zero-dimensional point in space Point B combined with Point A forms a line, or a one-dimensional space Point C combined with points A and B forms a surface, or a two-dimensional space Point D combined with points A, B, and C forms volume, or a three-dimensional space
Under this interpretation, the fourth dimension of space is actually the POINT, which defines the fractal element of space (the universe)—the TETRAHEDRON. Those four points—ABCD—of a tetrahedron define four-dimensional space without needing to drag the "dimension" of time into the conversation. Once you see that, we aren't just talking about 11, 111, or 1111 dimensions; we're looking at an infinite number of dimensions—exactly as many as there are points in the universe. But then again, we’d be talking about simultaneous space, or a holographic universe. In biology, there are billions of Creator entities, which is something traditional evolutionists seem to completely miss. Creative activity always happens at the level of individual units—the cells within a biological organism, including ourselves. Cells are those entities that create—they build the oak, the shell, the fish, the dog, the eagle, the elephant, the monkey, or the human. If you follow that logic, WE HUMANS ARE THE CELLS CREATING OUR OWN MACRO-BEING, just like any other cell in biology. This is my fundamental starting point for the idea that macroevolution regarding humans and humanity is still moving forward, and that WE HUMANS ARE THE SUBJECTS OF THIS EVOLUTION—meaning, WE ARE THE CREATORS, as evidenced by our creative output. Today, humans are already creating things that were "yesterday" strictly the domain of mysticism and a projected God. Nowadays, Man CREATES atoms, molecules, and life itself. Besides, traditional evolutionists haven't even touched, let alone acknowledged, the fact that a LOWER LEVEL OF BEING CAUSES—CREATES—A HIGHER LEVEL. If that weren't the case, we never would have made it from a single-celled organism to a human. Evolutionists call this "layered" emergence "evolution," driven by environmental and subjective factors like survival of the fittest, natural selection, and mutation. Unlike that explanation, I am talking about the realization that a HIGHER EVOLUTIONARY LEVEL IS THE RESULT OF THE CREATION BY A LOWER EVOLUTIONARY LEVEL. So, our cells, as a lower level, create us as their higher level, and we, as a LOWER LEVEL, CREATE OUR OWN HIGHER LEVEL—a new macrobiological being, a new macro-cosmic being: *Homo sapiens*.
You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT when you say "the greatest truths are the simplest because that's how it's always been, and what is most beautiful is also the simplest." You just have to approach it, and once a person realizes that, the barriers vanish. Ultimately, everyone—especially scientists and philosophers—should realize that the formula or truth of existence is as simple as any other natural law. Many people fall for the claims of incompetent or overly specialized scientists who argue that grasping natural formulas requires a highly trained, academic mind. That’s obviously wrong. The reality is that all essential formulas—the truths of physics, chemistry, and biology—are extremely simple, not complex. I constantly say that micro-scientists have drifted into scientific fantasy and mythology, while the TRUTHS are sitting right under their noses, completely ignored. So, don't hesitate to share your "trivial" insights. One massive area of "trivialization" is QUANTUM PHYSICS, where people try to elevate quantum perception to macroscopic levels. We walk, sleep, live, move, and think quantumly; our optical perception is quantum; our regeneration is quantum... and so on. I’m glad you picked this specific paragraph as an "example" of something positive—because honestly, being able to distinguish between pure science and applied science is absolutely vital if we want to crawl out of the "intellectual hole" modern scientists from these tiny micro-worlds are digging for us. Things that are invisible or remain unknown have always belonged to the realms of mysticism and mythology. That’s why it’s practically mandatory that insights from the microscopic level be scaled up to a visible macro level; otherwise, the mythology of science might just drag us straight into a modern-day scientific religion. We’re basically living in a display case of ultimate contradictions. On one hand, we’re diving deep into the microelectronic world of chips and nanotechnology, while on the other, we’re pushing into massive worlds like the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, the Sun (a star), and entire galaxies... The average person doesn't have the slightest clue about the first one, yet the second is right there in plain sight... It leaves them confused: What is all this actually for? Modern applied science seems determined to force us to stare at plasma-filled TV and computer screens for hours on end—staring at pure fiction, at non-existence, at illusions... None of this is accidental. Instead of explaining the purpose behind it all, scientists and philosophers are increasingly retreating into various formalisms and delusions. This is a reality of the modern world that we really need to start talking about.
If you're interested in the underlying infrastructure of this way of thinking, shoot me a DM and I'll send over something pretty fascinating.
I honestly have no clue what those numbers—60659—are supposed to signify. I mean, if we’re talking quantum physics, they sort of look like a numerical nod toward the Planck constant—6.62607056...—but that's a massive stretch, and frankly, there isn't really a connection there... plus, everything looks completely different once you switch over to binary, doesn't it?
Elizabeth says: Look, could you maybe walk me through that again? I'm still a little lost—could you please explain a bit more...
ps. do you have a favorite number—or at least one that you "feel" (I know, sounds ridiculous...) is somehow higher than the rest, just sort of special?
I don't know—something about number 4 just doesn't sit right with me—purely an emotional thing, really. I’m leaning more toward number 3 as the real key here. (man—plant—animal; day—dusk—night; black—white—color; heaven—hell—earth; birth—life—death;) Up until now, I’ve always operated under the assumption that everything could be neatly sorted into three buckets: good, evil, or neutral... but then there’s this other thing—this fourth factor—and honestly? I have absolutely no idea where to shove it.
Personally, I’ve always felt that 9 is the perfect number. There's just something about it—I don't know—it feels complete, right? It sits there at the end of the single digits, looking back at everything else before we jump into the double-digit chaos. Is it just me, or does it have a certain... balance to it? Maybe I'm overthinking it, but yeah, 9 is the one.
geza:
So, we’ve got this whole setup—the infinite line stretching from zero to one to infinity, the arrow of time, Euclidean space... you know, points, lengths, planes that have width and height but somehow lack depth. Even our standard measurements like inches or pounds—they all feel like these non-linear concepts that work just fine for getting things done, sure, but are they actually true? Not really. They're pragmatically useful, I guess, but cognitively speaking? They're fundamentally inaccurate. Just a bunch of convenient approximations, right? Wave phenomena, circular motion, sinusoids, spirals, complementary inverse patterns—all polar paired phenomena are nonlinear. It’s just like biological processes; they don't follow a straight line. If you’re actually bothering to study philosophy—which is really just the study of how everything connects—you have to embrace nonlinear thinking. Why? Because everything from atoms and molecules to minerals, living organisms, galaxies, and the entire universe oscillates. Everything has its own frequency. Therefore, oscillation is a universal, inherently nonlinear phenomenon. It’s kind of like how Eastern science and philosophy are entirely rooted in the organic—take acupuncture as the prime example of that organic philosophy. Speaking of which, I forgot to mention the Yin-Yang symbol when we were talking about duality. Most people interpret it as a simple duality, which is fundamentally wrong—simply because every Yin contains a little speck of Yang, and every Yang carries a speck of Yin. It’s similar to asking someone where the absolute northernmost point on Earth is. Usually, people give a quick, superficial answer like "the North Pole," but the reality is that the most extreme northern point is actually relative to the South Pole, and vice versa. It's all interconnected. If you want a solid way to wrap your head around the difference between linearity and nonlinearity, just look at how we perceive things visually—it’s actually pretty intuitive once you stop overthinking it. Picture a single stick that’s half white and half black. If you just take that exact pattern and duplicate it—making a bunch of identical white-and-black sticks—you’re looking at a linear representation. Simple, predictable, right? But things get interesting when you introduce non-linearity. If you have a set of purely black sticks and purely white sticks, you've already stepped into an even-numbered, nonlinear setup. Now, if you take two of those sticks and flip them—one being black-to-white and the other white-to-black—you’ve essentially created two inverse elements of a nonlinear representation. Here’s where it gets cool: imagine joining the tips of those sticks together—connecting the black tip to the white tip, then the white tip to the black tip. You end up with two triangles touching at their vertices. That specific point where they meet? That’s the point of inversion. It’s exactly like the focal point in a camera lens, or even better, inside our own eyes—that singular spot where you have the negative of an image on one side and the positive on the other. In a dynamic, oscillatory relationship, that is the essence of true nonlinearity and nonlinear representation. Honestly, even a simple hourglass is a perfect example of this kind of logic in action. So, here’s the thing—if you approach an investigation through a linear lens and then switch to a non-linear one, the results aren't just slightly different; they’re fundamentally distinct. You actually get meaningful outcomes from a non-linear perspective, whereas the linear path just hits a dead end. This is particularly crucial because a non-linear representation inherently includes the Origin—of the subject, the object, life itself, or even a core idea. Without that Origin, a non-linear view is essentially hollow—just noise without substance. Does that make sense now? Or am I still being too vague about the difference between linear and non-linear?
People get obsessed with numerology—thousands of them, really—scouring the universe for some "secret number combination." Personally, I view numerology as a decent little playground for messing around with digits, but nothing more than that. Why? Well, because I once spent some time "playing" with numbers—and my own head, for that matter—and concluded that the number TWO simply doesn't exist. I just couldn't wrap my mind around the concept of a "pair" being a distinct number. Eventually, I stumbled upon Bertrand Russell’s work on number theory and found the exact same conclusion from a mathematician and philosopher who, let's be honest, knows a hell of a lot more about what a number actually is than I do. But that was just the nudge I needed to head down a completely different path. On this journey, I realized that the mathematical universe of $1 + n$ always resides within the UNIT—meaning, besides the Unit, nothing else truly exists. Everything we perceive and experience as the cosmos is contained within this Unit, which acts as its own specific micro or macro-universe. Whatever universe we're talking about, the Unit is the standard for the units that compose it. In that sense, each of us is a single, self-contained universe made up of universal units—our individual cells. There could be an infinite number of these units, constantly emerging and vanishing, much like how living beings—which we might call "singularities"—are born and die. Our universe is within us, and the unit of that universe is the CELL. This implies something mathematicians established a long time ago: that a true natural number is a RATIONAL NUMBER, not the kind of whole integer you use when you're buying groceries at Walmart. Basically, the Unit expands and contracts—it oscillates—depending on the size of the set of units within it. But we aren't talking about a unit like a pile of bricks, slices of bacon, or a box of pencils; we're talking about a unit, or a set of units, composed of constituent units—like two kids playing together—so it's always a relationship between identical inverse units. When you look at it that way, instead of the relation $-1 \dots 0 \dots +1$, you actually have $-1/1 \dots 0 \dots +1/1$. In such a framework, a numerical expression like $9 \times 5 = 45$ ($4 + 5 = 9$) has no other meaning than this: 9 is a set of nine units, and 45 is a set of five larger units, each containing nine units. The fact that the sum of the product always returns to 9 only proves that 9 is the multiplication constant. It’s the same logic the Pythagoreans used when they noted that $1+2+3+4 = 10$; those are just the units forming a set of ten. You can play with this as much as you want and you'll always find a harmonic chord of numbers centered around 9—especially since the sum also implies the number Zero. If you link that to the nine months it takes for a human fetus to develop before birth... well, does that leave us standing "head over heels in mysticism"?
You’re probably already aware that we operate with four sets of inverse mathematical operations: addition - subtraction multiplication - division exponentiation - roots integration - differentiation
They’re all essentially the same four-tiered inverse operations—where if you run any pair, the result ends up back at zero. It basically means any one operation can be used to derive any other. When it comes to numbers, though, Pi is definitely my favorite. I’ve spent quite a while digging into it and stumbled upon some pretty wild results... but maybe I'll save that for another time.
Now, regarding the number four versus the concept of quaternary—that's a different story entirely, and honestly, it makes sense to me. I mentioned before that the number four isn't the same thing as quaternary, and since you still find the Trinity more compelling than the quaternary, I get it—it’s logical. Triads feel polar and existential, whereas the Holy Trinity—the "Trinity," the "Three Steps"—is tied to how we perceive a flat world or just certain aspects of our three-dimensional reality, like Euclidean geometry. But the sanctity of the four? That’s much broader, much more pervasive, stretching from ancient Mayan civilizations all the way to modern society. As strange as it might seem, God is described as quaternary according to Ezekiel, in the Kabbalah, and even in the Bible itself. Modern science across almost every discipline is built on fours; we ourselves are woven together in quarters. So, the quaternary is actually far more significant than the trinity. Just as a reminder, ever since we were kids, physics taught us there are three states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. For the longest time, they leave out the fourth state—plasma—which actually makes up 99.9% of the matter in the universe. It’s only that fourth state that truly completes the definition of matter, much like how the fourth neurological state completes a human being. Just as plasma dominates the cosmos, our fourth neurological state dominates our existence! Even a circle isn't complete until you hit that fourth quarter. That’s the crux of it. And one more thing before I wrap this up: We were all taught that a magnet has TWO poles—north and south—but that's really just an illusion. At the very center, you have a "Zero" which represents the minimum point of the opposing poles. This gives us a "Polarly Unified Magnet" from the center to the midpoint of each pole, and then two "Polarly Divided Halves" from those midpoints to the edges, which we label north and south. What I’m getting at is that every magnet contains both a unified and a divided component. This principle is universal because that is exactly how the quaternary structure works. We are constructed the same way: part of us is the polarly unified core that forms our organism—our torso—and part of us is the polarly divided part, our extremities (arms and legs) and our macro-polar orientation. Anyway, that was a bit of a long-winded explanation, but it’s impossible to be brief when you're laying it all out for the first time.
David Martin says: I see where you're going with this, but couldn't we just keep deconstructing things forever? We could land on 6, or 8... or maybe even pick 3, since the H keeps repeating in YHWH... Does that mean you actually think 4 is the "perfect" number? Not that I really believe numbers have any deeper meaning beyond helping us with basic math... As for the whole cipher thing, I’ve heard that before, but I just don't get how anyone compared the creation story to the human DNA code... hollowpilot9: Absolutely! We're talking about an elementary, self-generating phenomenon here. It’s all about elemental quaternary—this foundation that builds every other structure through multiplication, permutations, and combinations. Take the tetrahedron, for instance; it's the fundamental three-dimensional (and four-dimensional) shape of the UNIVERSE that gives rise to the five Platonic solids. In reality, that's the basis for all mineral structures. Think about a diamond crystal—it's a tetrahedron. Interestingly enough, there’s a scientific institute in Germany that demonstrates how the human skeleton follows a tetrahedral construction, right down to our teeth. But in the Kabbalistic sense, we’re looking at two such INVERSE TETRAHEDRA forming a tetrahedral star—or, in a flat 2D representation, the well-known Star of David, which actually has roots in Indian tradition. So, you see, YHWH is essentially the linguistic expression of that "SECRET" which was once attributed to the divine—to God himself—nothing more and nothing less than His very NAME. There’s this fascinating line that suggests: God looked into the Torah (semhaporas) and created the world by permuting and combining the letters and words of the Torah, which is itself woven from YHWH. If we translate that into modern scientific terms, it’s like saying: Man looks at the AGCT code and creates amino acids. Or: Man looks at the human genome, which is entirely woven from the four-letter AGCT code, and creates man. This is usually where the big misunderstanding happens, because our Occidental perception is so stuck on the idea of quaternary being the number 4—which has absolutely nothing to do with the quaternary I'm discussing. I'm not talking about four identical units, like four bricks or four pears; I'm talking about four things that are the same, yet simultaneously different. I used the example before, but a better one for general use would be the four quarters of a circle. It just seems to us like they are FOUR IDENTICAL QUARTERS, but in reality, they are four identical, yet simultaneously distinct spatial and polar quadrants. (KIND OF LIKE HAVING TWO PAIRS OF GLOVES—A WOMEN'S PAIR AND A MEN'S PAIR.) DISTINGUISHING NON-LINEAR PERCEPTION FROM LINEAR PERCEPTION IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. If we're walking through some landscape and you say: hollowpilot9, look over there, there's a rock with an eagle perched on it. In that case, you were the first to notice (to discover) the eagle sitting on that rock, right? The same goes for me—I was the FIRST to notice—to discover—that the Kabbalistic ciphers and molecular ciphers share the exact same arrangement, structure, and logos. They are identical because both are organized by the same complementary polar logos of quaternary. One is based on the quaternary of YHWH, the other on the quaternary of AGCT, and even something like taste is organized by the quaternary of SGSK (Salty-Bitter-Dull-Sour), or the universal cipher is organized by the symbols ABCD. Is it getting clearer now? JUST DRAW A TETRAHEDRON AND MARK THE VERTICES A, B, C, AND D, AND THAT'S IT!! The implication of this observation is "EAGLE-LIKE"? IF YOU TAKE THE DNA CODE OF A MOLECULE AND THE KABBALISTIC CIPHER, YOU CAN SEE THE SAME THING I SEE—THE "EAGLE." Save these posts, because this is my first time ever posting on a forum. If you're specifically interested in the topic of quaternary, just ask and keep commenting without feeling hesitant or restricted. I'm telling you this for a serious intellectual reason. A woman, as an emotionally intelligent and intellectually capable being, is incredibly necessary and vital for recognizing what I'm talking about!!! The hardest part about being on a forum is finding someone to talk to—a partner, a fellow researcher... We're all just acting smart, aren't we...
So, I’m sitting here wondering—how exactly does Kabbalah *not* represent dualism? I mean, if you look at the framework, you’ve got the absolute Good—God, if you will—but then you have this absolute Evil popping up right alongside it. Sure, the argument is that truth doesn't actually impact God because this whole concept of evil was just cooked up to give humans actual free will... but still. It feels pretty dualistic to me, doesn't it?
If we weren't leaning on some kind of dualistic theory—you know, that whole good versus evil tug-of-war dynamic—wouldn't the very existence of evil just... vanish? It’s an interesting thought, isn't it? Without that fundamental tension between opposing forces, does "evil" even have a definition left to cling to? That’s actually a great question. Let me try to break this down—just to recap: Kabbalah means the transmission of specific things, and I don't mean just any random info, but rather DIVINE truths. Basically, it’s the Jewish tradition interwoven with religious mysticism. Right from the jump, the core premise is that the entire Torah is woven from the names of God. It’s pretty clear that the Torah isn't God Himself, but rather an explanation of His name—which, in Jewish tradition, represents the Tetragrammaton, the one true, actual divine name, YHWH. This really goes to show that Kabbalah is built on quaternary structures—fourfoldness—rather than simple duality or dualism. What usually trips people up is that you often see dualistic relationships mentioned in Kabbalistic texts; but honestly? That’s mostly due to the influence of Arab literature and certain Kabbalists who misread the Torah through a two-layered lens instead of a four-layered one. You still see this error today in general philosophy and science—people obsess over binaries like male vs. female, day vs. night, good vs. evil, or positive vs. negative. But the truth is, those are all four-layered entities, not dual ones like we're led to believe. For instance, if you want to actually grasp Kabbalah, you can't just look at the male-female relationship as a simple binary based on outward appearance. You have to see them for what they truly are: each is 50/50 dual within itself, which makes them quaternary, not dual. Take us, for example—you are 50% female and 50% male, just with a female polar signature, whereas I am 50% male and 50% female, with a male polar signature. That’s just our reality—that internal duality multiplied by two gives you the quaternary nature of Kabbalah. But honestly, the most fascinating part of all this is the idea of the cipher—the code through which God creates the universe. It’s exactly like how a DNA molecule serves as the blueprint to create a human being. That’s the real meat of the matter, the truly captivating stuff... everything else is just extra, depending on what you're interested in, I guess.
David Martin says: interesting. if I'm following you correctly, you're saying you’ve spotted the structure of the Kabbalah "Tree of Life" embedded in the very foundations of everything around us? That's certainly a thought worth digging into. (some people say the Tree of Life is the key to everything—I'll admit, I haven't gone down that rabbit hole to verify the claim myself...) So, does this mean you're an advocate for dualism?
hollowpilot9: From what I gather, the "Tree of Life" is just the Kabbalah interpretation of the human being as they already exist, whereas the Semaphoras is the actual cipher—the logos of creation. Not sure if you've run into this before, but there’s this table that is incredibly similar—actually, I'd say it's identical—to the AGCT table used in the synthesis of amino acids. To me, the reason the Kabbalah is so fascinating is that it represents our attempts to grasp and actually practice divine creation. According to the Kabbalah, the Bible is entirely woven from the four letters of JHWH—which, as you know, is God's personal name. Those letters, or that name, build the words and sentences of the Torah—the Bible—through various permutations and combinations. Personally, I find that entire passages within the Kabbalah, specifically those written by S. Sholem, can be read almost 100% accurately if you swap out the terms for concepts and words at the level of a DNA molecule. I don't think that's a coincidence—the same pattern shows up in other contexts too, like the tetrahedral taste cipher or pretty much any other sensory phenomenon humans experience. Classic dualism is very familiar to me, but the Kabbalah isn't dualistic. Dualism is a bit of a contentious topic these days because when you look at almost any phenomenon, you realize every entity is inherently dual—it's a duality that traditional dualism tends to overcomplicate. If you're specifically interested in that, I can walk you through some more explanations and examples. It's all part of the NEW SCIENCE AND THE NEW PHILOSOPHY THAT IS EMERGING.
David Martin says: So you were getting into the Kabbalah? Nice... Not like I'm a stranger to the Kabbalah myself...
hollowpilot9: No, I wasn't just "studying" the Kabbalah? It sort of collided with my life—hit me out of nowhere—and once it did, I noticed SOMETHING that pushed me toward certain activities I wouldn't normally touch with a ten-foot pole in this lifetime. If you're in the loop, there's this idea that the logos of the Kabbalistic Sefirot—its whole structure, anyway—is analogous to the code of the DNA molecule used to build amino acids. I’d go as far as saying they share the exact same logos and structure. The Kabbalistic Sefirot is essentially the cipher used to write the Torah—and subsequently the Bible as we know it today. But wait, there's more! Then comes the realization that the Ji-Jing uses a cipher identical to both the Kabbalistic and molecular biological ones, and then—total SHOCK—that all three of these ciphers are mathematically identical according to Gödel. ??? After that, naturally, comes "MY UNIVERSAL CIPHER," which applies to everything from taste buds to the brain, and from the brain to the entire universe. It sounds pretentious, I know, but it isn't... everything happened by pure CHANCE, as is usually the case with "great discoveries." Great discoveries aren't ever the result of sheer brilliance... true intelligence is only sought after once those great discoveries start being applied creatively—constructively—which is what we call applied science today, though most people can't tell the difference between that and natural science. Pay attention, because this post is actually pretty vital information!
David Martin says: That's a given. It's common knowledge that animals can sense things like massive storms brewing long before any visible signs actually pop up. They’ve got these highly tuned senses for stuff we humans can't even begin to wrap our heads around...
hollowpilot9: Just think about those military marches or the brass bands playing right before certain death. It’s all just extrapolating and isomorphicizing that same single wave phenomenon...
Darda is just Darda—it’s right outside Indianapolis, with Canadian roots and maybe some deeper Jewish influences buried under the surface. Given my father's last name, I’m probably looking at some distant Jewish ancestry myself, too; I mean, the Kabbalah just clicked for me instantly—like, it made perfect sense from day one. Maybe I'll regale you with that whole fascinating little intellectual saga later on?
Your post could easily branch out into a massive, multi-layered debate—which is fine by me. It’s actually pretty fascinating when you look at how memory and knowledge are shifting right now, and where we're headed over the next 30 to 50 years. If you want to go down a rabbit hole, try searching Google for this Nigerian engineer named Emeagwali. He’s a Black IT genius who, about a decade ago, laid out a theory regarding a GLOBAL BRAIN—a sort of superbrain. People used to tear him apart back then—much like my own peers tend to do to me—but now they’re hailing him as a visionary who predicted the internet age and one of its actual architects. I’ve always had a soft spot for guys like him; you need a truly innovative mind and a massive imagination to see that stuff coming. And let’s be honest, around here—forgive me—imagination is often treated as being worth less than a roll of cheap toilet paper. Personally, I’m hopeless when it comes to memorizing raw numbers or dry facts, but I’ll take being a genius at conceptualizing new ideas and using my imagination any day. As for the tsunami, the reality is that I haven't actually heard a legitimate, official scientific explanation for what went down at the epicenter. From what I gathered, the initial footage showed a massive receding of the ocean—a withdrawal—immediately followed by that devastating surge. Besides, am I the only one who hasn't heard anyone mention feeling an earthquake? There’s all this talk about it being a tidal gravitational wave moving at speeds of 600 to 559 miles miles per hour, which I honestly can't wrap my head around—unless, of course, I just have zero clue how tsunami waves actually function? If the seabed actually retreated by something like 30 to 50 meters, there had to be an initial impulsive wave—that pulling effect—followed by a repulsive wave at the epicenter that manifested as the tsunami itself. If that’s how it works, then it’s an absolute embarrassment for modern civilization, and especially for science. On the other hand, if the seafloor surged upward by 1,000 meters, like I heard some people claiming on the news, then the story changes entirely—though it’s still just as humiliating for science and society. That’s why the whole thing feels so... "murky" to me. I tried asking my "brilliant" scientists a few direct questions—specifically about the frequency and amplitude of the tsunami wave—and instead of getting an answer, I just got lectured about how I clearly don't understand wave mechanics. Real helpful, right? And as for "birth of tragedy," to me, that’s a book that deserves a gold plating because it suggests that every great human catastrophe is preceded by music that lures it in. So, the tsunami had its own melody that animals could sense, but humans couldn't? That doesn't feel like a coincidence; it feels like a fundamental truth. The phenomenon of tragedy is deeply tied to destructive wave interference—it's essentially synonymous with things like the trumpets of Jericho, the voice of the siren, or ultrasound. Honestly, it felt like it was a hair's breadth away from Earth collapsing like a house of cards.
Estera Eržebet Balog - Darda—though she goes by Estera Eržbet Zake now—from a city like Columbus. Interesting, isn't it? I’ve actually used the pseudonym Ester Balog for quite a while. I used to sneak all sorts of different pieces under that name, too. But once they figured out my actual first and last name, they basically tossed me aside immediately. And honestly, what else can I say besides... well, "clueless" editors...
hollowpilot9: Brilliant! Finally, a sign that two different perspectives can actually interfere constructively—instead of the usual constant bickering and fighting we see. You make an interesting point about faith being absolute knowledge, whereas I’d argue religion *contains* absolute knowledge. It sounds like the same thing, I know, but there’s a subtle distinction there, isn't there? We’re all essentially wandering in the dark until we recognize the PATTERN, but once you spot the pattern, everything just clicks into place. That Google fellow says our entire perception is basically 99% pattern recognition. Personally? I’m right there with him. My take is that everyone is smart in their own specific way and plays their part. It’s honestly tragic how some people imagine there’s this elite tier of intelligence—which, of course, they always include themselves in—while everyone else is just a more or less clueless amateur. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve noticed that a regular guy—say, a rancher, a fisherman, or even some local drunk at a dive bar—is significantly sharper than a PhD when it comes to anything outside that doctor's narrow field of study. It makes sense, really; everyday people deal with the grit of real life, while academics spend their time on hyper-specialized, often non-existential problems.
The whole tsunami thing is still pretty "fuzzy" to me, even though I have a decent handle on physics. I just finished watching a documentary on it, but I haven't come across a single solid, official scientific explanation of what actually went down at the epicenter. The interpretations I've heard are contradictory and, frankly, illogical. Maybe there just isn't enough data yet, but one thing is certain: modern civilization—and I’m including scientists here, not just politicians—has shown a textbook level of laziness regarding this.
Look, waves are a very dangerous "toy." Have you ever had the chance to read Sed Alić’s book, *The Birth of Tragedy*? A lot of people claim the destruction of the walls of Jerihon was just religious mythmaking. Those people clearly have no clue about the power of destructive wave interference. In the Bible, that is DIVINE POWER—and it is!! It’s sad that so many people don't grasp this, yet they love to argue over "elite" knowledge. Just as a reminder: Kalasica shattered glass simply through the sheer volume of her noise. Today, we achieve that same destruction using ultrasound. When an external wave destructively interferes with the waves within a material, the object disintegrates. Is it possible to tear the Earth itself into pieces? And not just the Earth? Divine power held in human hands... that's infinitely more potent than nuclear force. That happens to be one of my little "specialties."