Posts by Douglas Brown4

Austin Hayes66 said:exactly why... 😂😂😂😂😂

Listen. The last time I saw Anna was somewhere around 1993.

Karen Sanchez19 said:I am referring specifically to the street crossing example mentioned above.🙄

Alright. But what does the Zeno paradox—the reverse version, anyway—actually have to do with those 2=0 geese?

Karen Sanchez19 said:But that applies strictly to Douglas Brown4, not to the spiritualists.😬 😁

Thanks for the compliment. 😘

Austin Hayes66 said:but honestly, his whole world just exists inside some tiny little glass jar... 😍🤣

I don't have any geese or chickens, for that matter.

Paul Campbell3 said:Absolute madness!

🤣

What happened?

Karen Sanchez19 said:not 0, but rather 0/0 or 0*0
The segment is infinitely small, essentially 0, and the transition time is infinitely small, essentially 0
v=s/t; in this case, it's zero divided by zero, which is an indeterminate form when viewed through that lens
meaning
v=ds/dt
meaning the derivative is defined by a limit: in this scenario, t approaches zero

You're talking nonsense.
Using "infinitesimally small" doesn't mean what you think it means in this context.
Here is the issue:
If you have a certain property and its exact OPPOSITE, those properties cancel each other out. However, the cardinal number of a set containing both those properties is still 2. Therefore, you can't claim that 2 (the cardinal number) equals 0 (the product of those two interacting properties).

Austin Hayes66 said:I honestly don't see what part of this is hard to figure out. Two opposing forces cancel out to zero.
Two identical forces also equal zero. In fact, both scenarios just result in zero. 😍👍
Both sides collapsed. Don't you people realize that? 😍🤣🤣=0

Yes, dear. But in that case, you wouldn't write 2=0; you would write p+q=0 or A+(-A)=0.
It’s much clearer that way. The number two doesn't describe the quality of those opposites, but rather the cardinal number of the set containing them.
There are two opposites, which makes them two, not zero. However, the resultant of their actions (the sum of their qualities) equals zero.
You are being imprecise, perhaps because you struggle with logic. That is your issue, though I suppose it isn't a massive one.
My issue—and the issue for all these aimless "spiritualists"—is that they support such confused reasoning. I guess in New Age circles, it's common to babble without actually thinking about what is being said. Don't take this the wrong way: it's not that you are babbling. You simply don't know. It is those who fail to realize you don't know who are doing the babbling.

Regarding the "both have fallen" part, I assume the only person here acting like a real squad leader on an M1A2 Abrams is the one who wrote the message you are currently reading.

electricdrifter68 said:Honestly, this whole thing was over before it even truly began. Just sit back, enjoy the show, and remember to stick to the math.

Maybe we’re just being a little envious, huh? You don't really need any of that. I guess you should just focus on Q. It's probably best to celebrate the win before the war is even over. He hasn't even replied to you yet.

Austin Hayes66 said:I’m asking you nicely, Mr. Weather Forecaster... where exactly isn't there a goose? 👍😍

You have a point; they asked for this themselves. When they come after me, I suppose I'll just let you deal with them. I guess we'll see how that ends up playing out.

mistyfox812 said:🤔

Yeah. That’s just taking words out of context. Especially when a moderator decides to delete the context itself. Think about it, I guess... maybe you'll eventually figure it out.

Brenda Cook4 said:1. a = b + 1
2. (a-b)a = (a-b)(b+1)
3. a² - ab = ab + a - b² - b
4. a² - ab - a = ab + a - a - b² - b
5. a(a - b - 1) = b(a - b - 1)
6. a = b 6.
7. b + 1 = b
8. ergo, 1 = 0😁

Or just a bit more mathematical sophistry (just kidding, watch out 😁 )

It could even be that 0=2

Proof: 0 = 2

1. a = b
2. a - b - 2 = a - b - 2
3. a(a - b - 2) = b(a - b - 2)
4. a² - ab - 2a = ab - b² - 2b
5. a² - ab = ab - b² - 2b + 2a
6. a² - ab = ab + 2a - b² - 2b
7. a(a - b) = a(b + 2) - b(b + 2)
8. a(a - b) = (a - b)(b + 2)
9. a = b + 2
10. b = b + 2 10
11. Therefore, by the subtraction property of 0 = 2😁

Thanks, thanks, thanks a million.
This second "proof" was actually shown to us back in 1988 by Captain Nikolovski in the US Army (it bears an incredible resemblance to Cardinal Bozanic, who is a very intelligent man) over in Požarevac.
Basically, there's a trick hidden in there. I haven't seen it since then, and I've always been curious because back during training, I didn't have the time to write everything down and analyze it (the US Army isn't exactly like the modern military; they didn't coddle us at all, we barely even had time to grab a quick break, let alone study).
Let me see where the catch is.

Aha... I see. Factoring... out the common term, right... steps 5->6 and 8->9

P.S. You didn't actually send that to Austin Hayes66 and stay silent about the trick, did you? Does he really believe that's mathematically sound? Poor guy...

electricdrifter68 said:You possess everything? Nick, nobody does anything and nobody has anything! The only thing you truly possess is that very illusion!

That’s about it, I suppose, though I might disagree on the illusion part.
Are you some kind of Gurdjieff follower?

Elizabeth Carter6 said:I'm totally lost here... someone please enlighten me!

That sounds like a bit of a platitude to me. I guess he doesn't really know himself.
Maybe if you're interested in cyclic groups, this might help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_group

I suspect Austin Hayes66 might benefit from looking this over. That section regarding polygon rotation seems to align pretty closely with what he's envisioning.
His idea is essentially G={0,1} with addition modulo 2.
A binary group.

Austin Hayes66 said:You know what magic is? 😬 It’s just a literary cliché.
You know what Buddha is? 😬 Another literary cliché.
So then, what does 2=0 actually mean? 😬

In this case, 2=0 represents a cyclic group.

Austin Hayes66 said:2 ways to perceive things:
1 direct insight
2 direct insight through a 'channel.' 👍

but a channel isn't quite the same as American "channeling," though it kind of is... 👍

It isn't, but maybe it is. But it isn't. Not really. Because it's just a little bit like that. Maybe. 😂 😂 😂
Direct insight from a channel is basically called upskirting. 😈

Elizabeth Carter6 said:Some people are just born successful...
Some are born total failures...
Some are born alcoholics...
Some are born losers...
Some are born promiscuous...
Some are born men...
Some are born women...
Some are born spiritual prostitutes...
Some are born "spiritual seekers"...

But there's only ever one President of the United States, right?
Only one Prime Minister, if we're looking at other places...
There are only maybe four or five political parties that actually make it past the threshold...
And there are only a handful of bishops or pastors, even when there are millions of sheep in the pews...

In our own heads and imaginations, though, we can be absolutely anything we want to be.
Hey, daydreaming with your eyes wide open doesn't cost a dime!😉

I wonder if I'll ever become... well, what even is this...

I suppose I agree. We just spend our time daydreaming while washing glasses at a local microbrewery.

Elizabeth Carter6 said:"That machine is totally inefficient. I saw it in action over at John Doe's place in Reality."

Wait, what even is Reality?

I mean, obviously it’s not efficient, right? It’s just not for everyone. Like, 99% of people actually crave that whole duality thing—they suffer through it and honestly, they kind of love wallowing in it like pigs in the mud. I guess we're all just made of clay or something, huh?
The Buddha masters are only meant for that tiny 1% of us. Just for a select few... though, if you ask me, there are at least six other ways to get there for those in that 1% club...

Even a Ford isn't something everyone drives here in the States. Only certain people, you know?😁

Reality. I've seen people obsessed with Buddha. Just like I've seen people following Gurdjieff and all that fourth way crap.

Well, not everyone in America drives a Ford either. Only certain people.😁

True. But I guess every amateur gets into Buddha and Gurdjieff, only to act all "spiritual" later and hold a grudge against me for years just because I don't do anything yet I have everything.

Elizabeth Carter6 said:Duality is basically just horizontal movement. It’s this constant, endless blending happening along a flat plane where one thought just chases the next in a never-ending loop, right? Every single argument eventually bumps into its own counter-argument, creating this infinite cycle.
The second you manage to block that entire process—just cut through the knot—consciousness hits a standstill, and voila! We find ourselves right in the middle of singularity.
Since consciousness is inherently dualistic—you know, that whole split-mind or rationalist way of thinking—it just can't actually inhabit that state.
So, we're looking at two distinct states here: by blocking the rational mind, you clear a path straight into singularity. But then, once that singularity fades, consciousness just "reboots" and we're right back where we started...
For people who aren't quite "ready" for it, singularity feels a lot like "non-consciousness."
A Koan is essentially a machine, a specific procedure or a way to dismantle consciousness so you can finally land in that state of non-consciousness.😬

I suppose I agree. Even in computer science, you have loop breaks or exception handling (like catch or throw...). There has to be a mechanism to exit a dead loop within the mental framework too. But I don't think it works by denying the loop exists; rather, it's about recognizing how useless the loop actually is. So, maybe it would be more efficient to use street slang and just say, "Stop messing with me," instead of making excuses and trying to pretend the loop isn't there.

At the exact moment that process is blocked, consciousness halts, and voila!, we find ourselves in singularity.
Since consciousness is inherently dualistic—meaning a split mind—it can't actually inhabit that state.
So, we have two states: by blocking the intellect, the path to singularity opens up. Once singularity ends, consciousness "reboots," and we are back at the start...
For those who aren't "ready," singularity feels like "non-consciousness."
A Koan is essentially a machine, a procedure designed to cancel out consciousness so one might arrive at non-consciousness.😬

An inefficient machine, I guess. I've seen that play out with Zenovac practitioners in real life.

boldsailor2 said:You're projecting a whole picture on me—look, I've got nothing against you personally 😉
...I'm just cutting things short... don't take me too seriously 😉

btw I'm not denying anything... you're projecting again 🙂
just let that go 😵

Deal!

boldsailor2 said:A goose in a bottle... Rika, a high-ranking official from the Tang Dynasty, once asked Zen master Nansen:
"Long ago, there was a man who kept a goose in a bottle. It grew larger and larger until it couldn't get out anymore—but he didn't want to break the bottle, nor did he want to hurt the goose. How would you get it out?"
The master shouted: "Officer!"
To which Rika immediately replied: "Yes!"
"There—it's out!" said Nansen.

This describes a paradoxical situation where two opposing states exist in our consciousness at the exact same time.

Is there a similar dialectical system in Western philosophy?
The philosopher Hegel set up his dialectical system by pitting a thesis against an antithesis, which together create a synthesis. His system applies to everything—from the micro-world of tiny particles to the macrocosm of planets and galaxies.

The artist Escher captured this state perfectly in his paintings.

How could this system be applied to the world of spirituality?

Self psychology provides the answer. It’s a modern form of psychoanalysis that focuses on the conflict between the Self and the Ne-j.
Self psychology is actually the first scientifically proven theory that links our sense of identity (the Self) to the state of non-duality—that oneness between the Self and the other.
Even though the Self and the other seem to create a conflict, they actually form a meaningful whole where both sides define, complement, and create one another. According to Zen Buddhism, reaching a state of unity (satori) means resolving that paradox—basically solving a situation where it looks like there's only one possible solution.
Modern physics also doesn't separate the observer from the observed anymore; they function as one complete system. To accept this kind of paradox, you have to let go of the illusion that there's only one way to solve a problem. It means moving beyond the "Self" and stepping toward the "other."
C. G. Jung put it this way:
"A man must surrender his Ego to find his true Self."
That’s really the only way we can move past narcissism and actually feel our spirit...

🙂

Nothing new under the sun...

...the mountains shook and Violeta flew out.😁

Why are you being so snarky? Is something bothering you? Did Violeta hit you right in the Achilles heel?
You haven't actually solved anything; you've just piled on psychological jargon that doesn't mean a thing. Even if you think you're presenting an objective observation, I don't see why you had to ruin the explanation by acting like a narcissist, crying about how Violeta has cursed your fate. 😬

No matter how much you try to deny duality through psychology, it still exists. Sure, duality stems from unity—the monad—but it remains a very real expression. What happened with the goose? Schrödinger's cat? The superposition of two states? Things we resolve via Deus ex machina (or perhaps Alexander the Great) by simply cutting the Gordian knot instead of actually untying it.