- #26

- 740

- 3

Or am I missing the point?

- Thread starter phoenixthoth
- Start date

- #26

- 740

- 3

Or am I missing the point?

- #27

- 1,569

- 2

fuzzy logic and/or three-valued logic may accomodate it.

- #28

- 36

- 0

- #29

- 1,569

- 2

suppose "there are no absolute truths" is an example of an absolutely true statement.

the following are also:

"there is at least one absolutely true statement." note that since this is different from "there are no absolute truths", the total number of absolute truths is > 1.

let n be the number of absolutely true statements. so far, n>1 because it's at least 2:

1. "there are no absolute truths"

2. "there is at least one absolutely true statement."

now there are three choices:

1. n<2 (not possible by the list above)

2. n=2

3. n>2

suppose n=2. then a third absolute truth is "there are exactly two absolutely true statements," so our list becomes:

1. "there are no absolute truths"

2. "there is at least one absolutely true statement."

3. "there are exactly two absolutely true statements."

but wait, now n=3!=2 (more precisely, n>2 and not n=2). hence choice 2 isn't possible.

hence n>2.

let k be a number that is at least 2. we know that for k=2, n>k is true (base case). now we wish to show the indcution step: n>k implies n>(k+1). this, combined with the base case, will show that n is infinite.

suppose n>k (where k is at least 2). then we have the following k truths:

1. "there is at least one absolutely true statement." (ie "n>0")

...

k. "there are at least k absolutely true statements." (ie "n>(k-1)")

if these were the only absolute truths, then n=k. but n>k, by induction, so we can add another truth:

(k+1). "there are at least k+1 absolutely true statements." (ie "n>k")

now there are three choices:

1. n<(k+1) (not possible by the list of k+1 truths above)

2. n=(k+1)

3. n>(k+1)

suppose n=(k+1). then a (k+2) absolute truth is "there are exactly (k+1) absolutely true statements," so our list becomes:

1. "there is at least one absolutely true statement." (ie "n>0")

...

k. "there are at least k absolutely true statements." (ie "n>(k-1)")

(k+1). "there are at least k absolutely true statements." (ie "n>k")

(k+2). "there are exactly (k+1) absolutely true statements." (ie "n=(k+1)")

but wait, we have k+2 absolute truths though n=(k+1). hence, choice 2 is not possible and so it must be 3: n>(k+1). the induction is complete.

hence there are infinitely many absolute truths.

more generally, if there is at least one absolute truth, then there are infinitely many.

the following are also:

"there is at least one absolutely true statement." note that since this is different from "there are no absolute truths", the total number of absolute truths is > 1.

let n be the number of absolutely true statements. so far, n>1 because it's at least 2:

1. "there are no absolute truths"

2. "there is at least one absolutely true statement."

now there are three choices:

1. n<2 (not possible by the list above)

2. n=2

3. n>2

suppose n=2. then a third absolute truth is "there are exactly two absolutely true statements," so our list becomes:

1. "there are no absolute truths"

2. "there is at least one absolutely true statement."

3. "there are exactly two absolutely true statements."

but wait, now n=3!=2 (more precisely, n>2 and not n=2). hence choice 2 isn't possible.

hence n>2.

let k be a number that is at least 2. we know that for k=2, n>k is true (base case). now we wish to show the indcution step: n>k implies n>(k+1). this, combined with the base case, will show that n is infinite.

suppose n>k (where k is at least 2). then we have the following k truths:

1. "there is at least one absolutely true statement." (ie "n>0")

...

k. "there are at least k absolutely true statements." (ie "n>(k-1)")

if these were the only absolute truths, then n=k. but n>k, by induction, so we can add another truth:

(k+1). "there are at least k+1 absolutely true statements." (ie "n>k")

now there are three choices:

1. n<(k+1) (not possible by the list of k+1 truths above)

2. n=(k+1)

3. n>(k+1)

suppose n=(k+1). then a (k+2) absolute truth is "there are exactly (k+1) absolutely true statements," so our list becomes:

1. "there is at least one absolutely true statement." (ie "n>0")

...

k. "there are at least k absolutely true statements." (ie "n>(k-1)")

(k+1). "there are at least k absolutely true statements." (ie "n>k")

(k+2). "there are exactly (k+1) absolutely true statements." (ie "n=(k+1)")

but wait, we have k+2 absolute truths though n=(k+1). hence, choice 2 is not possible and so it must be 3: n>(k+1). the induction is complete.

hence there are infinitely many absolute truths.

more generally, if there is at least one absolute truth, then there are infinitely many.

Last edited:

- #30

- 733

- 0

Hi phoenixthoth, Have you tested this with kinesiology?Originally posted by phoenixthoth

suppose "there are no absolute truths" is an example of an absolutely true statement.

the following are also:

"there is at least one absolutely true statement." note that since this is different from "there are no absolute truths", the total number of absolute truths is > 1.

let n be the number of absolutely true statements. so far, n>1 because it's at least 2:

1. "there are no absolute truths"

2. "there is at least one absolutely true statement."

now there are three choices:

1. n<2 (not possible by the list above)

2. n=2

3. n>2

suppose n=2. then a third absolute truth is "there are exactly two absolutely true statements," so our list becomes:

1. "there are no absolute truths"

2. "there is at least one absolutely true statement."

3. "there are exactly two absolutely true statements."

but wait, now n=3!=2 (more precisely, n>2 and not n=2). hence choice 2 isn't possible.

hence n>2.

let k be a number that is at least 2. we know that for k=2, n>k is true (base case). now we wish to show the indcution step: n>k implies n>(k+1). this, combined with the base case, will show that n is infinite.

suppose n>k (where k is at least 2). then we have the following k truths:

1. "there is at least one absolutely true statement." (ie "n>0")

...

k. "there are at least k absolutely true statements." (ie "n>(k-1)")

if these were the only absolute truths, then n=k. but n>k, by induction, so we can add another truth:

(k+1). "there are at least k+1 absolutely true statements." (ie "n>k")

now there are three choices:

1. n<(k+1) (not possible by the list of k+1 truths above)

2. n=(k+1)

3. n>(k+1)

suppose n=(k+1). then a (k+2) absolute truth is "there are exactly (k+1) absolutely true statements," so our list becomes:

1. "there is at least one absolutely true statement." (ie "n>0")

...

k. "there are at least k absolutely true statements." (ie "n>(k-1)")

(k+1). "there are at least k absolutely true statements." (ie "n>k")

(k+2). "there are exactly (k+1) absolutely true statements." (ie "n=(k+1)")

but wait, we have k+2 absolute truths though n=(k+1). hence, choice 2 is not possible and so it must be 3: n>(k+1). the induction is complete.

hence there are infinitely many absolute truths.

more generally, if there is at least one absolute truth, then there are infinitely many.

- #31

- 1,569

- 2

to give you an answer, i don't have a partner to test it with and i'm not assuming my own consciousness "calibrates" at over 200 though i suspect it does. i have this vague memory of there being a way to test statements without a partner but when last i looked, i couldn't find the way to do it. also, it was mentioned that motivation has a lot to do with the result of testing. if i want to calibrate the truth value of those statements with the intent of boosting my own ego like "hellz yeah i did something right" then i might not get an accurate answer. i'm starting to realize that debate has its purpose to sharpen and hone (sp?) one's pattern but that also has its limitation at which point you just have to let the truth (or lack therof which is hopefully not the case) stand on its own during a time when it becomes self-evident, not requiring the agreement of others or proof.

- #32

- 733

- 0

I have done nothing yet no testing. I am thinking of all the ways to do it to bypass all the prejudices. 1/2 book to go. Read both. We will talk of this later.Originally posted by phoenixthoth

that is a particularly interesting question that i doubt most people will "get."

Does it matter we get it.

to give you an answer, i don't have a partner to test it with and i'm not assuming my own consciousness "calibrates" at over 200 though i suspect it does. i have this vague memory of there being a way to test statements without a partner but when last i looked, i couldn't find the way to do it. also, it was mentioned that motivation has a lot to do with the result of testing. if i want to calibrate the truth value of those statements with the intent of boosting my own ego like "hellz yeah i did something right" then i might not get an accurate answer. i'm starting to realize that debate has its purpose to sharpen and hone (sp?) one's pattern but that also has its limitation at which point you just have to let the truth (or lack therof which is hopefully not the case) stand on its own during a time when it becomes self-evident, not requiring the agreement of others or proof.

- #33

- 1,569

- 2

if you can find his phd thesis online, that would be most excellent, dude.

- #34

- 733

- 0

Yes we are. You must read the first. It explains the process fully. I am on the second and will then read the third later. A trilogy is made that way for a reason. Each is different and all adds something.Originally posted by phoenixthoth

if you can find his phd thesis online, that would be most excellent, dude.

- #35

- 1,569

- 2

curious... i've never known anyone i have known to have read hawkins except for one guy i barely know.

- #36

- 733

- 0

Mother Teresa read it, now i know why? I know of two people whom i have mentioned it to. You are the first also. Although the trilogy could fall into anyones hands, it would do the most good for all, in the hands of 250+. One thing, i do not understand, why can not everyone, understand what they know already, who am i to know it? Thank youOriginally posted by phoenixthoth

have you found your at least perceived state of consciousness shifting as you read it? have you noticed a lot more forgetting of what was written than you normally do with books?

Yes i do. Thoughts are not mine, upon reading i remember again what i already new. Books are not found, books find who needs to read them. The library i have, choose me. May i ask why you will not read the first? The first is as valuable to me as the second. As to the question of not knowing anyone who has read the book. That answer is in the book, not many wish to know what is in it. It will find who needs to read it. The attractor field of who is influenced by it will see to that. Few things have i read that i did not already know already. One never forgets what one knows already.

curious... i've never known anyone i have known to have read hawkins except for one guy i barely know.

Last edited:

- #37

- 1,569

- 2

well if you say the first is worth reading, i'll give it a shot. i suppose my main reason for not reading it is that the calibration of each book increases and so i guessed it wouldn't be as useful to read the first and least calibrated book to find anything that wasn't in spirit in books 2 or 3.Originally posted by Rader

May i ask why you will not read the first?...Mother Teresa read it, now i know why? I know of two people whom i have mentioned it to. You are the first also. Although the trilogy could fall into anyones hands, it would do the most good for all, in the hands of 250+. One thing, i do not understand, why can not everyone, understand what they know already, who am i to know it? Thank you

one thing about 3 is that more opinions on outside matters are included which may make it even more objectionable. i just focus on the spiritual stuff. it has several chapters hawkins calibrates at a crisp 1000. it seems less abstract, for lack of better term, than book 2. having read over 1/2 of it, i'm wondering what the hell i read cuz i don't remember much. one thing i just read which corresponds to something i already believed/knew:

"there are an infinite number of universes that exist in an infinite number of dimensions."

he then gives a rough overview of some of the other universes. an interesting read whether or not its true though there isn't much super new about what he writes.

this is definitely a trilogy with a destiny. people will, i think, have a polarization effect: it will either really turn them off or really turn them on. i didn't know MT read pvf. my view prior to reading hawkins had already been a mish-mash of theism and buddhism so what he writes is pretty much a perfect fit for me it seems.

a piece of writing that has the similar hawkins effect on me is the articles on droids and beings:

http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=15;t=21

Last edited by a moderator:

- #38

- 733

- 0

I did.Originally posted by phoenixthoth

well if you say the first is worth reading, i'll give it a shot. i suppose my main reason for not reading it is that the calibration of each book increases and so i guessed it wouldn't be as useful to read the first and least calibrated book to find anything that wasn't in spirit in books 2 or 3.

a piece of writing that has the similar hawkins effect on me is the articles on droids and beings:

http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=15;t=21

one thing about 3 is that more opinions on outside matters are included which may make it even more objectionable. i just focus on the spiritual stuff. it has several chapters hawkins calibrates at a crisp 1000. it seems less abstract, for lack of better term, than book 2. having read over 1/2 of it, i'm wondering what the hell i read cuz i don't remember much. one thing i just read which corresponds to something i already believed/knew:

"there are an infinite number of universes that exist in an infinite number of dimensions."

he then gives a rough overview of some of the other universes. an interesting read whether or not its true though there isn't much super new about what he writes.

this is definitely a trilogy with a destiny. people will, i think, have a polarization effect: it will either really turn them off or really turn them on. i didn't know MT read pvf. my view prior to reading hawkins had already been a mish-mash of theism and buddhism so what he writes is pretty much a perfect fit for me it seems.

Its curious there is nothing new i have read yet, just a deeper understanding of how it is.

Traditional Roman Catholic is my background, with an open mind to observe.

Read Urantia it is all told there. It answers all answers from a perspective of those beings. It is bible size in small print and could take years to obsorb.

I am working on a philosophical TOE. Trying to study many things and put the puzzle together. Hawkins has made me aware of something that i realized before, but a different way. It is curious how different people link similar ideas and express the same thing in there own way. Attractor patterns are the mathematical constructs of Chaos Theory and at the same time can apply to evolution of spiritual, mental and physical reality. I wrote this on another thread with basic idea in mind.

As time progressed from the first wave function crashing until the present, it is possible to conceive, how growth through evolution of individual to universal consciousness occurred. How and why myths, patterns, groups, ideologies, religions, nations and races, appear and disappear. Dreaming collectively is how it happens. We are then, all dreamers inside the big dream.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #39

- 1,569

- 2

God appears to me to be both an infinite attractor field with infinite gradations of attraction and an infinite repulsion field with infinite gradations of repulsion. in order to be all that is, this kind of infinite spectrum would seem to have to necessarily be the case. so i'm wondering if this is why there is duality. mam's theory is that percieved duality of opposites on this planet is due to there being a choice made long ago for there to be two kinds of people: beings and droids. mam, at least, think (dare i say know?) that this is either the only or one of a few planets where both kinds of people exist together. one wonders why there isn't just one kind of particle or one flavor of electric charge but are even those not just different vibrations of the same thing? unity at the root of it all and duality just an artifact of perception? if so, why have it? is it due to our incomplete state of evolution? if so, we're approaching a time, with so many more people in a state of unity, when the normal perception and even way of percieving will change.

i think that the field feels repulsive precisely when one has not surrendered their will to God's will to some extent. kind of like forcing a compass to be out of sync with the magnetic field. there are forces on that compass trying to align it to a destiny (where the attractor field is going, so to speak, not that it's going anywhere) but due to free will, we are all free to oppose this attractor field; in such cases it feels like a repulsion field and any divine notions are not regarded as they are.

i put some quotes from I along with the map of the scale of consciousness for anyone interested. i know i'm breaking the hell out of the law but i hope hawkins wouldn't mind; it's just a couple of pages from his book, after all, and i'm quoting it for educational purposes and not for profit. here goes nothing:

http://www.alephnulldimension.net/articles/phoenix/I quotes.htm

the intellect cannot create the disolution of the ego. the ego can't dissolve itself. that requires help from your higher self and/or God. the intellect can take you up to 499 on the map from what i remember.

it is my understanding that the reincarnation cycle is meant to take a soul through various incarnations up through the scale and the last life lived will be the one during which one finally "gets it" or gets part of it. what happens after that i can obviously only speculate because i'm no avatar. physical life, including the hologram projecting onto the consciousness island called phoenix, in this case, will cease to appear artifactual and only three dimensional. you could call that state without those artifacts nirvanna or heaven if you will, though i'm not making a particular claim as to what those states or places are like though i recently heard an interesting theory. heaven and hell are the same place but you will experience it subjectively differently according to how your consciousness calibrates on the scale of consciousness. that sounds a lot like earth...

may your journey be graceful,

phoenix

- #40

- 733

- 0

Do an experiment be aware, go into a heavy dicussion in a group, listen, the discussion will be on a attractor pattern level. You change the level, either up or down by your comments, you can see the influence you can make. Observe the expressions on the faces of those present.Originally posted by phoenixthoth

God appears to me to be both an infinite attractor field with infinite gradations of attraction and an infinite repulsion field with infinite gradations of repulsion. in order to be all that is, this kind of infinite spectrum would seem to have to necessarily be the case. so i'm wondering if this is why there is duality. mam's theory is that percieved duality of opposites on this planet is due to there being a choice made long ago for there to be two kinds of people: beings and droids. mam, at least, think (dare i say know?) that this is either the only or one of a few planets where both kinds of people exist together. one wonders why there isn't just one kind of particle or one flavor of electric charge but are even those not just different vibrations of the same thing? unity at the root of it all and duality just an artifact of perception? if so, why have it? is it due to our incomplete state of evolution? if so, we're approaching a time, with so many more people in a state of unity, when the normal perception and even way of percieving will change.

i think that the field feels repulsive precisely when one has not surrendered their will to God's will to some extent. kind of like forcing a compass to be out of sync with the magnetic field. there are forces on that compass trying to align it to a destiny (where the attractor field is going, so to speak, not that it's going anywhere) but due to free will, we are all free to oppose this attractor field; in such cases it feels like a repulsion field and any divine notions are not regarded as they are.

i put some quotes from I along with the map of the scale of consciousness for anyone interested. i know i'm breaking the hell out of the law but i hope hawkins wouldn't mind; it's just a couple of pages from his book, after all, and i'm quoting it for educational purposes and not for profit. here goes nothing:

http://www.alephnulldimension.net/articles/phoenix/I quotes.htm

the intellect cannot create the disolution of the ego. the ego can't dissolve itself. that requires help from your higher self and/or God. the intellect can take you up to 499 on the map from what i remember.

it is my understanding that the reincarnation cycle is meant to take a soul through various incarnations up through the scale and the last life lived will be the one during which one finally "gets it" or gets part of it. what happens after that i can obviously only speculate because i'm no avatar. physical life, including the hologram projecting onto the consciousness island called phoenix, in this case, will cease to appear artifactual and only three dimensional. you could call that state without those artifacts nirvanna or heaven if you will, though i'm not making a particular claim as to what those states or places are like though i recently heard an interesting theory. heaven and hell are the same place but you will experience it subjectively differently according to how your consciousness calibrates on the scale of consciousness. that sounds a lot like earth...

may your journey be graceful,

phoenix

You say that God appears to me to be both an infinite attractor field with infinite gradations of attraction and an infinite repulsion field with infinite gradations of repulsion.

Read chapter 18 truth and error in the eye of the I again, there is the answer. Its very clear to me now there is no opposites, we make the opposite, there is only God, Life, Truth.

The answer why duality exists, not the physical reason but the spiritual reason, could be simple that that is the parameter God choose in this universe, for evolution to evolve, nothing to perfection.

The repulsiveness of the other attactor patterns is due to ignorance of awarness of them. Then again we can apply Chaos Theory to the quesion why is someone more aware of something and another not?

Do to my background the reincarnation cycle, in my humble opinion,i would prefer that it happens on other astral planes. I think its egocentric but i would not my astral accumulation of spirit, to be stuffed in another body.

I would say the capital city of Hell on Earth right now is Iraq.

- #41

- 1,569

- 2

you are so right about the experiment. it applies to discussion forums as well, of course. it also has to do with how one's perception changes when they are in the unity state, "seeing" things that others may choose not to.

i'll check out 18 again. thanks.

yes, indeed that is a very helpful chapter.

i'll check out 18 again. thanks.

yes, indeed that is a very helpful chapter.

Last edited:

- #42

- 146

- 0

This is an excellent example of circular reasonning.

Thankyou.

Thankyou.

- #43

- 1,569

- 2

you're welcome, btw.