User Controls
Trianglism Installment ▲o
-
2017-04-09 at 4:30 PM UTCConsciousness is inherently in 2-base, while reality as we understand it best is founded from 3-base quanta. We are reflecting a single face of innumerable tetrahedrals, meaning our triangle-based sentience is slowly evolving through glimpses of various tetrahedral perspectives, until enough information is integrated noospherically to proceed to a singularity with objective quanta interactions. How long it takes for us to ascend to 4-base, 5-base after that is for nature to decide.
A. Tetrahedral (3-base, 3^3) quanta is the building block of reality
B. The quanta is perceived by a conscious receiver
C. A simplified, triangular (2-base, 3^2) mental image of the object is registered, over time conscious receivers are able to perceive all the perspectives of the quanta, and thus construct an accurate simulation
D. This perfected simulation is used to manipulate the object in favor of conscious receivers
E. A new, unexplored tetrahedral quanta is analyzed
How this conclusion was arrived to
--------------------------------------------------
Shape Wars: Triangle vs. Tetrahedron
M= Siegmund
J = Sploo
M: the 'power' is with the tetradedron....comprised of triangles....look at the bottom of the page here: http://www.vxm.com/link.siegmund.html
.
J: as a god i was trying to worship the most powerful object in the universe which i thought would be a triangle because it's the first object to take up empty space, though the vectors/spheres and line components are equally important..but every shape or object after a triangle is just composed of smaller triangles, and i dont think the egpytians build pyramids that were tetrahedtral, i think they were square based, but ill give it a read later
its just a 3 dimensional triangle
4d triangle is probably more "profound" even if anyone theorized about it
.
M: the tetrahedron is the first structure with an inside and outside
it is 4D
.
J: a tetrahedron may be 4d in a sense but is it n-dimensional? string theory says 11 dimensions (not sure if string theory is true) but wouldn't 5d triangles 8d triangles be inherently superior to the tetrahedron the same way the tetrahedron is superior to the triangle? my point is you can always add extra dimensionality but the base component (triangle) stays the same, the properties of 3d 4d 5d etc are just inherent to dimensional states
.
M: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html
the answers are in Synergetics
.
J: also saying "the answer is in Synergistics" to me seems like kind of a dead end, if the answer to a question cant be explained in a sentence or two but instead requires a 1,800 page read it seems like a non-answer.
.
M: it ain't easy being a 3D thinker in a 2D world https://archive.org/details/flatlandromanceo00abbouoft
.
J: "tetrahedron is the answer" is settling on an arbitrary level of complexity, i think triangle is more valid because any complex n-dimensional universal structure is based on the exponentiation of the triangle
.
M: I learned about fractal universe when I took a course in Holography at UCLA
.
J: the answer is the number 3
not 42
.
M: triangle alone is not structure...and is 2 dimensional
draw one
.
J: we perceive in 3d i believe, so i think 2d reality exists, the same way the 8d triangular reality exists that we can not percieve, a 1d reality is a point but at least 2d forms a protostructure, the points and lines are like quarks, the triangle is like an atom, a tetrahedron is like a molecule. its kind of a matter of semantics determining whether quarks, atoms, molecules, or something bigger is the "true" key
.
M: we are dealing with relationships and configuarations of wave and frequencies....if you not the diagrams are of that...joining at vertices to form structure...the basic structure of universe....the tetrahedron
.
J: if i didn't have stereoscopic vision would the graph still be comprehensible? probably
.
M: lookFig. 3. Tetrahedron as Vectorial Model of Quantum: The tetrahedron as a basic vectorial model is the fundamental structural system of the Universe. The open-ended triangular spiral as action, reaction, and resultant (proton, electron, and anti-neutrino; or neutron, positron, and neutrino) becomes half quantum. An association of positive and negative half-quantum units identifies the tetrahedron as one quantum.
.
J: oh so instead of it just being a probabilistic quantum field or revolving around nucleus (disproved) it's actually a tetrahedral system. but isnt that the whole P/MP dilemma? all of this information can be perceived in two dimensional physical representations
do the same physics apply to our perceptions is an important question
.
M: well, as Fuller said, U=MP...so you have Universe being both the physical & metaphysical
.
J: its kind of like a necker cube
from viewpoint A you have a triangle from viewpoint B you have a tetrahedron
https://upload.wikimedia.org/…/Ne…/220px-Necker_cube.svg.png
two viewpoints which are equally valid like particle/wave
circle or continuous line
.
M: the important thing to remember it seems to me....is that the tetrahedron is at the core of everything physical and metaphysical
.
J:i think a tetrahedron is physical base and a triangle is metaphysical base because 2d thinking definitely exists
which is what i mean by its a necker cube of viewpoints
.
M: a circle..is not a structure a sphere is...and a sphere is tetrahedronal...in the case of Earth a 10,000 frequency shphere
.
J: but a circle is a mental structure
you can draw it
you can imagine it
.
M: 10,000 frequency tetrahedron...its all in Synergetcs....I managed to plough through it...so can you
.
IN MY OWN CONCLUSIONS SO FAR: Most other shapes are inferior to the triangle. The spheres that create the triangle are as valid as the triangle itself as building blocks. A triangle in reality may only exist in tetrahedral form, but through our perceptions we create two dimensional structures from "bottom up" mental processing before reaching higher dimensions, so there is a duality between a tetrahedron and a triangle in the physical and the mental constructions of reality. If we processed tetrahedrons first from bottom up processing we would be completely in tune with the nature of the universe surrounding us.
.
What do you think? Who is the most truly logical god?
Post last edited by sploon at 2017-04-09T16:33:59.790805+00:00 -
2017-04-09 at 5:20 PM UTCsacred knowledge
0 replies -
2017-04-09 at 5:31 PM UTCMaybe you should find a creative outlet that more people are into. Reading about trianglism isn't very much fun although i am sure you put a lot of work into it. If you want people to say: Wow, that's pretty cool. Then you should write/make things that are.
-
2017-04-09 at 5:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Maybe you should find a creative outlet that more people are into. Reading about trianglism isn't very much fun although i am sure you put a lot of work into it. If you want people to say: Wow, that's pretty cool. Then you should write/make things that are.
I'm writing about the physics of reality in relation to perception. It isn't a meme anymore, I thought it was but apparently it isn't.
This is where you paste a highschool classical physics question to "discredit" whatever I'm posting, like a normal education is the creator of realistic thought. -
2017-04-09 at 6:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by sploon I'm writing about the physics of reality in relation to perception. It isn't a meme anymore, I thought it was but apparently it isn't.
This is where you paste a highschool classical physics question to "discredit" whatever I'm posting, like a normal education is the creator of realistic thought.
You wouldn't know a highschool "classical physics" question from your ass if i posted it. In fact "Classical Physics" isn't actually a thing. It's called classical mechanics, dumb fuck. -
2017-04-09 at 6:23 PM UTC
-
2017-04-09 at 6:24 PM UTC
-
2017-04-09 at 6:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Sorry, maybe i should do as you do. Post a page of horseshit, proclaim it as reality and go by that.
Did you even read it? Tell me why I'm wrong. Make rebuttals for my statements and I'll take it into consideration. I even posted a discussion I had with someone else, he used the same sort of fluid reasoning to help me elaborate on my theory further to explain how reality itself is tetrahedral, with links to Buckminster Fuller's writings on Tetworld. Basically the same as my triangle theory but as a tetrahedron instead. But these work dualistically from what I've figured out after that. Not to mention the guy has a tested IQ of 185 but that isn't totally relevant. -
2017-04-09 at 6:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by sploon Did you even read it?
You kidding? Of course not.
"Consciousness is inherently in 2-base, while reality as we understand it best is founded from 3-base quanta."
Was enough for me to NOPE out of there. This sentence is meaningless. I shall pull a Sploo for you.
The perception of time as a quanta or multi-dimensional function of space is best understood with a framework of hyperbolic logic. -
2017-04-09 at 6:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie You kidding? Of course not.
"Consciousness is inherently in 2-base, while reality as we understand it best is founded from 3-base quanta."
Was enough for me to NOPE out of there. This sentence is meaningless. I shall pull a Sploo for you.
The perception of time as a quanta or multi-dimensional function of space is best understood with a framework of hyperbolic logic.
Read the post, the discussion, and the links and you'll see this is a valid theory. You're like the type of guy who would tell Newton he was wrong because of some new symbol that you never saw before. That's kind of what being uncreative/rigid is, a reliance on systems that are already there without divergent thinking into your own systems.
"The perception of time as a quanta or multi-dimensional function of space is best understood with a framework of hyperbolic logic."
Maybe alone this sentence is meaningless, but you were taking my sentence out of context without any analysis of the reasoning behind it. If you were able to back this sentence up with a logical theory then yes, it would be plausible. I think this in essence is your assumption that you're more intelligent than me because you know how to write programming, so then any theory I develop can be denied for its validity. At this point even if I am right you're just going to try to prove me wrong in any way possible because that's the valence you started out with and have had for years. -
2017-04-09 at 7:06 PM UTCThe problem is, sploo, that you try to package your autistic ramblings as genius, and cite meaningless IQ tests and buzzwords as proof. None of this is intelligent. No one can debate with you or prove you wrong, because the whole thing is straight up nonsensical.
*cue an insult and another long schizo explanation as to why I just don't get it*The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-04-09 at 7:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo The problem is, sploo, that you try to package your autistic ramblings as genius, and cite meaningless IQ tests and buzzwords as proof. None of this is intelligent. No one can debate with you or prove you wrong, because the whole thing is straight up nonsensical.
*cue an insult and another long schizo explanation as to why I just don't get it*
Actually I've had three different people debate with me. The first was HTS and he was wrong, but then someone else helped me understand that the components of the triangle are as important as the triangle itself, like "molding clay". The third person is in the OP and showed me links from a famous polymath who came to the conclusion that reality is tetrahedral, and I agree with him, but I think a tetrahedral reality is a matter of perceptions.
If you attempt to debate the validity of my statements without at least attempting to understand the source of the conclusion, you're misinformed and your arguments can be disregarded.
Read this before you try to debate with me more:
http://www.vxm.com/link.siegmund.html
Post last edited by sploon at 2017-04-09T19:12:05.606371+00:00 -
2017-04-09 at 7:18 PM UTC"The foregoing passage contains several important points to be used in developing a rationale for employing the conceptual tetrahedron as an organizational systems structure useful both as a problem solving tool and model for organizing human efforts, they are:
1. The tetrahedron is the simplest system in Universe.
2. It is the minimum set which divides Universe into macrocosm and microcosm.
3. Its geometry appears out of pure conceptuality.
4. Minimum consideration is a four-star (four event) affair that is tetrahedral.
5. The tetrahedron occurs conceptually independent of events and independent of relative size.
6. It is the basic structural unit of physical Universe quantation.
7. It has the fundamental prime number oneness.
8. It is a form of energy package. (See Figure 1)
9. It satisfies the requirement of quantum mathematics for four quanta numbers for each uniquely considerable quantum.
10. It is transformable.
11. Nature uses it for her fundamental transformation of organic and inorganic chemistry.
12. At the level of general systems consideration of special cases, thoughts spontaneously resolve themselves into the tetrahedron.
13. Tetrahedron considered as the number two, represents unity, as unity is at minimum two.
14. As the number 2, i.e., the rational energy quantum of physics and the topological tetrahedron of the vector equilibrium (VE), it rationally accounts for all physical and metaphysical (author's note: i.e., metaphysical is without mass/matter, unweighable) systems. (See Figure 5)
15. It is the minimum thinkable set." -
2017-04-09 at 7:41 PM UTC
-
2017-04-09 at 8:26 PM UTCnone of this shit makes any sense are you retarded
-
2017-04-09 at 8:27 PM UTC
-
2017-04-09 at 8:43 PM UTCThis is like cargo card Heidegger or something. It sucks.
-
2017-04-09 at 9:02 PM UTC
-
2017-04-10 at 4:27 PM UTCLot of ad homonyms up in dis fred
-
2017-04-10 at 9:37 PM UTC
