Reality possesses One Reality

[Ostronomos]

Its size must take on a measurable volume.

Not caring what this quote is about because it's just an example of a simple sentence that speaks volumes...When I see words like must, it tells me someone has tried to logic something. To the thinker/originator it sounds like the only attainable result. But we all know nature or reality if you wish, doesn't always meet the expectation. IOW you cannot know for sure whether you've made the right conclusion. So how close would such a notion be to now becoming a belief? It's not fact unless proven so in this case where nothing has been proven, the idea falls into the belief category, no matter how logical you think you are. THere's that plus the fact the reader might not have any idea of what you're basing your logic on. So if it's been extrapolated from another unproven belief then what's the use?

This is only partially correct with regards to forcing the logic. It was more of a colloquial attempt to support the logic of the original statement, that reality contains and causes reality. In that sense reality does not distinguish itself from itself by negating itself, it selects itself through a process by what the CTMU calls UBT (unbound telesis, or the logical negation of logic). By doing so, it maintains its consistency, otherwise, absurdity would occur. This self-perceptual capability implies that information on reality is inherently read/ written by a universal mind. The volume of reality is infinite according to the Friedman equations but finite according to the single universe of the Big Bang model. There are also the 5-dimensional branes of the multi-verse who's surface contains each universe.

[Zinjanthropos]

Here's one for you OS. When and if we figure it all out or how a god(s) did it(for the theists in the crowd) , the universes, realities, consciousness', you name it....do you think it will be incredibly complex or simple?

[Ostronomos]

Here's one for you OS. When and if we figure it all out or how a god(s) did it(for the theists in the crowd) , the universes, realities, consciousness', you name it....do you think it will be incredibly complex or simple?

I believe it will be incredibly simple. This is due to the fact that reality seems to be characteristically simple on all levels. Even mind is simple/ simply information.

[Ostronomos]

The physical matter can be reduced to information, which gives rise to Physics. Matter is information (see my post above). The general contains the specific and complex systems must evolve or perish into the unreal.

If at one point in time something was real, then can it become unreal if it dies? Impossible.

I can't be in two places at once except in Quantum physics and its infinitely possible realities and evolution princples (an entity cannot be real if it doesn't fit into evolution, life cannot exist or become real if it cannot evolve).

Sweet.

What makes reality the same is not what distinguishes it... namely, unreality.

---

Your OP seems to assume a certain monism---that reality is all one thing. But how do we know that?

I think that it's plausible to say that there are different kind's of reality. Physical objects exist in one way. The laws of physics exist in another way. Fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes exist in yet another way. There are ideas and word meanings. Numbers and the abstract structures of mathematics seem to have some kind of objective existence. We might need to have some account of unrealized possibilities. The past, present and future seem to have different kinds of reality.  

If it is to have any claim to completeness, metaphysics will have to provide an account of all of those.

The thing I wrote which you inspired was basically about how "I am not a hero". It draws referrence to Batman and Superman (who is really Batman's partner/challenger, even when he turns against Batman, he still has something deep down in him that prevents him from going all the way to finish off Batman in a fight). Fictitious characters may seem fictitious but they may exist anyway because they are possibilities. Who's to say that there aren't Superheroes trying out/unlocking their powers either way? We are certainly not ones to say.

I ask the question "who am I?" without searching for it in invisible entities. I ask it by self-discovery of every new moment. I ask it by self-expression.

[Ostronomos]

Yazata

Your OP seems to assume a certain monism---that reality is all one thing. But how do we know that?

I think that it's plausible to say that there are different kind's of reality. Physical objects exist in one way. The laws of physics exist in another way. Fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes exist in yet another way. There are ideas and word meanings. Numbers and the abstract structures of mathematics seem to have some kind of objective existence. We might need to have some account of unrealized possibilities. The past, present and future seem to have different kinds of reality.  

If it is to have any claim to completeness, metaphysics will have to provide an account of all of those.

Non-fiction and fiction are concepts, therefore, when the associated object in our minds and "phosphenes" envision as originating from spirit and consciousness, we tend to treat the concepts as though they were part of reality but are not actual. The actual reality is but one, as there can be only one possible existence in a proportionally equivalent reality that is consciousness and awareness of the one that I am ---> God, Good, and Love are all the same. Therefore, you are God, Good, and Love. Separation is a concept to which the one reality defines itself and is itself holistic and monistic.

This rules out pluralistic explanations of reality, forcing us to seek an explanation at once monic (because nonpluralistic) and holistic (because the basic conditions for existence are embodied in the manifold, which equals the whole). Obviously, the first step towards such an explanation is to bring monism and holism into coincidence.
 

---

CTMU is refuted?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



My refutation is probably? incorrect though.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There is still more to learn about the ...UBT

According to the CTMU, a general theory of reality must explain reality strictly in terms of reality itself.

Reality is defined as:

Reality is that which contains all and only that which is real

The reality principle is tautologically true, therefore it is irrefutable.

Yet, the tautology is a symmetry principle, so, the reality principle is not really based on 2V logic but it is based on invariance.

The CTMU explains: If our universe were to occupy a medium into which it could expand, the medium would be an even more basic form of reality than the universe itself. If the more basic form of reality were to occupy such a medium, the medium would be even more basic. A contradiction. Reality cannot be expanding in any external sense. Thus, the real universe inwardly creates its own scales of extension and duration. The reality principle also agrees with the background independence of general relativity i.e curvature is intrinsic, so there is no higher dimensional space that can serve as a fixed background. Since curvature is intrinsic to the manifold it is invariant.

Following the CTMU principles, the best model for an inward evolution is that of a language. It is explained that a language evolves by a process in which specific elements are substituted for more general elements.
The highest most general elements contain the more specific elements. The starting symbol is the "Telic Principle"

[Telic Principle = TP]

[TP[[sentenial relations]]TP]

[TP[[[[[evolving language]]]]]TP]

The inward evolution of reality is a process called "conspansion", which consists of two complementary operations, inner expansion and re-quantization:

The evolving language, via the process of conspansion, can be depicted as the intersection and union of Venn diagrams, where circles[really spheres-light cones] represent events. The circles inner expand and their intersect represents the re-quantization phase. Every event inner expands again. As the inner events expand, the locality principle applies between events and not within them. So the history of an event is contained within its own lightcone.

The Extended Superposition Principle[ESP] allows for the wave function collapse to be determined by higher order teleological functions spanning the successive layers of spacetime.

I find myself in agreement with Gedankin though. The term "wave function collapse" is a useful fiction but it does not actually correspond to what is really happening!

There must exist something called a real world not necessarily represented by a wave function. We realize that Mr. Langan's reality principle must also apply to his CTMU "ESP Principle".

[Ostronomos]

Yazata

Your OP seems to assume a certain monism---that reality is all one thing. But how do we know that?

I think that it's plausible to say that there are different kind's of reality. Physical objects exist in one way. The laws of physics exist in another way. Fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes exist in yet another way. There are ideas and word meanings. Numbers and the abstract structures of mathematics seem to have some kind of objective existence. We might need to have some account of unrealized possibilities. The past, present and future seem to have different kinds of reality.  

If it is to have any claim to completeness, metaphysics will have to provide an account of all of those.

Non-fiction and fiction are concepts, therefore, when the associated object in our minds and "phosphenes" envision as originating from spirit and consciousness, we tend to treat the concepts as though they were part of reality but are not actual. The actual reality is but one, as there can be only one possible existence in a proportionally equivalent reality that is consciousness and awareness of the one that I am ---> God, Good, and Love are all the same. Therefore, you are God, Good, and Love. Separation is a concept to which the one reality defines itself and is itself holistic and monistic.

This rules out pluralistic explanations of reality, forcing us to seek an explanation at once monic (because nonpluralistic) and holistic (because the basic conditions for existence are embodied in the manifold, which equals the whole). Obviously, the first step towards such an explanation is to bring monism and holism into coincidence.
 

---

CTMU is refuted?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



My refutation is probably? incorrect though.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There is still more to learn about the ...UBT

According to the CTMU, a general theory of reality must explain reality strictly in terms of reality itself.

Reality is defined as:

Reality is that which contains all and only that which is real

The reality principle is tautologically true, therefore it is irrefutable.

Yet, the tautology is a symmetry principle, so, the reality principle is not really based on 2V logic but it is based on invariance.

The CTMU explains: If our universe were to occupy a medium into which it could expand, the medium would be an even more basic form of reality than the universe itself. If the more basic form of reality were to occupy such a medium, the medium would be even more basic. A contradiction. Reality cannot be expanding in any external sense. Thus, the real universe inwardly creates its own scales of extension and duration. The reality principle also agrees with the background independence of general relativity i.e curvature is intrinsic, so there is no higher dimensional space that can serve as a fixed background. Since curvature is intrinsic to the manifold it is invariant.

Following the CTMU principles, the best model for an inward evolution is that of a language. It is explained that a language evolves by a process in which specific elements are substituted for more general elements.
The highest most general elements contain the more specific elements. The starting symbol is the "Telic Principle"

[Telic Principle = TP]

[TP[[sentenial relations]]TP]

[TP[[[[[evolving language]]]]]TP]

The inward evolution of reality is a process called "conspansion", which consists of two complementary operations, inner expansion and re-quantization:

The evolving language, via the process of conspansion, can be depicted as the intersection and union of Venn diagrams, where circles[really spheres-light cones] represent events. The circles inner expand and their intersect represents the re-quantization phase. Every event inner expands again. As the inner events expand, the locality principle applies between events and not within them. So the history of an event is contained within its own lightcone.

The Extended Superposition Principle[ESP] allows for the wave function collapse to be determined by higher order teleological functions spanning the successive layers of spacetime.

I find myself in agreement with Gedankin though. The term "wave function collapse" is a useful fiction but it does not actually correspond to what is really happening!

There must exist something called a real world not necessarily represented by a wave function. We realize that Mr. Langan's reality principle must also apply to his CTMU "ESP Principle".

So we see that the inner circles of the Venn diagrams represent lightcones. And the lightcones carry information on the history of every event within the universe. The universe is recording information in other words. This is a mathematical analogy that is based on reality and further demonstrates the place of mathematics in reality. The wavefunction collapse is a secondary event that follows the higher order teleological function, not a primary one, hence the term "Extended Superposition Principle". I disagree with analog57's belief that the wavefunction is not real however. I believe that waves are real and so wavefunctions must be real by definition.