New: Axioms of Metaphysics

[Ostronomos]

1.] The mind exists at individual points in metric space but shares a single point in sub-space. This would explain why non local mind can exist.

2.] The human brain resonates between material and immaterial levels of reality. Reality has its own frequency because it IS energy.

3.] The world and the body appear within consciousness, rather that the other way around.

4.] The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

5.] When man is unprotected he will become prey to a type of logic that resides in reality(the thing we incorrectly believe can only be perceived and not mind connection that fills our flesh and blood bodies as well as everything else and thus results in non-separation and hence limitlessness).

6.] Self and non-self or God and non-God merge to become the one that distributes over the one.

I am as sure of God as the shortest distance between A and B must be a straight line.

[Ostronomos]

In the event of demonic forces fear not, for there is always an omnipotent God:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/uAY7Lz6t6gU

[Ostronomos]

Now for the finale (as far as axioms go):

8.] Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themselves as a separate and distinct lifeform.

9.] Mind = Reality = Language. Reality enters the mind in the form of language or information.

10.] Reality is self-perceptual. Reality observes itself.

11.] Death is an illusion of change. Whereas objects exist within time and space, reality does not.

[Magical Realist]

Good luck with that Sci Forums thread. I won't tell...lol!

[Yazata]

An axiom is -- A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

So my first question is why should we accept this set of rather doubtful propositions as axioms? Do you really want to argue that they are self evident? (They aren't)

Or do you propose to assume them hypothetically and then try to produce an argument that if we accept these particular premises as true, then we will need to accept whatever you think they imply as true as well? In which case, not only do you need to produce the argument connecting your axioms to whatever you want to conclude, the 'why should we accept these premises as true' question still stares us in the face as well. Otherwise all we will have is a doubtful conclusion based on doubtful premises.

Perhaps where you need to start is by explaining what you think each of these supposedly axiomatic propositions means (it isn't obvious) and why any of us should accept any of them as true. And tell us what you propose to do with them.

[Ostronomos]

An axiom is -- A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

So my first question is why should we accept this set of rather doubtful propositions as axioms? Do you really want to argue that they are self evident? (They aren't)

Or do you propose to assume them hypothetically and then try to produce an argument that if we accept these particular premises as true, then we will need to accept whatever you think they imply as true as well? In which case, not only do you need to produce the argument connecting your axioms to whatever you want to conclude, the 'why should we accept these premises as true' question still stares us in the face as well. Otherwise all we will have is a doubtful conclusion based on doubtful premises.

Perhaps where you need to start is by explaining what you think each of these supposedly axiomatic propositions means (it isn't obvious) and why any of us should accept any of them as true. And tell us what you propose to do with them.

You can at least accept them as a logical possibility.

[Syne]

You'd have to be able to discern their specific meaning in order to accept them as logical possibilities.
You'd have to start by defining sub-space, immaterial reality, and reality's frequency.

Hell, over a curved surface or spacetime, the shortest distance between two points often isn't a straight line. That's why airline routes arc.
As a result, the shortest path between two locations is in fact an arc