The Sacred Mathematics of Spirit

Ok so if the math is ok on a worldly level, could it be right on a level prior to that?

i.e. before the universe [not necessarily in terms of time] or on a level prior to objects, would we say that the background information follows similar or the same rules? …so nature isnt the cause.

What that could mean is at least that nature doesn’t have to follow mathematical rules and patterns as we read them from the world, it could all be working on a more fundamental level. The stars, planets, nature, ‘intuition’ [even for things in nature in some way] and even some coincidence could be working by those rules.
what is the world relating to!

is there any way we could see that as ‘sacred geometry’?

idk about that, i mean, even if sacred geometry is the cause, it might be just accurate to say sacred geometry IS nature.

sacred geometry is explicitly all about mathematical rules and patterns. geometry is a form of math, after all.

It’s not even about whether or not it could be right. Billions of things could be right and aren’t. For a theory to be worth considering seriously, “it could be right” is not enough. The criteria are more rigorous than that.

Agreed. We have to make distinctions though. Sacred geometry may not be a direct cause, more of a guide e.g. a flower or shelled creature may grow its petals or spirals according to how it ‘intuits’ what it needs for survival etc. its as if it holds up worldly needs and compares them to the blueprint - if you will. I don’t think that’s an intellectual process on any level btw.

…from the world; I said! What I meant was they could be following sacred geometry that is not in the created world. We humans can see math in the world and can say that’s how things work, but we are looking at it from the outside, and I doubt if plants or planets can do that.

We could also say that the math is in the patterns in the DNA and that would also be ‘worldly math’. I am not denying that but it seems very likely that there is ‘background information’ [as in the holographic theory] at a sub-level to worldly things.
I cannot imagine how material existence can occur without information, everywhere we look at objects we see info, and the forming of something also relies upon information ~ what else can material existence take its instruction from?

I don’t know how to prove that, but I am sure any theory about material creation will involve info, its self evident [it wouldnt even be a theory without info, nor concerning it].

i feel dumber for having watched a lot of those vids

You learned something you didn’t know. By definition you’re smarter.

ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_o … thing.html

yes, the flower of life is clearly a very important geometrical shape. notice, though, how that physicist didn’t ever bring up a spirit flying around in circles. hence my first post in this thread. there are clearly ways to talk about the relevance and beauty of the flower without making up nonsense about spirits flying in circles. he’s really diluting the true awesomeness of sacred geometry by throwing in that garbage. it’s a shame.

Why focus on that? Does it anger you that someone said something you don’t believe possible? That’s funny to me. As I said earlier in this thread: anything is possible.

The depth of what 99% of board thinks is possible could be alikened to a pool with no water. This place is so shitty mostly, basically because of people like you. No possibilities. No creativity. Just people affirming g their small worlds.

Anyways, moving on, notice how it’s clear he’s referring to some ‘pattern’ but he refuses to describe it by another other than G8 when the G8 is an function of the flower of life. A couple places it looks like he’s even tempted to say it. He knows he has to use the right terms for fear of breaking the carefully built veneer of the ‘scientific’ world. This is a guy who lives in his van, clearly somewhat on the academic fringe.

Lol. TED is awesome, but also it’s so disgusting too.

Know what sounds even more dubious than flying disks controlled by some ascended person?

String theory.

no, it doesn’t anger me that somebody said something that’s ridiculous in a youtube video. i’m still allowed to point out that it’s ridiculous. does that anger you?

Okay - AF gets a warning for: “This place is so shitty mostly, basically because of people like you. No possibilities. No creativity. Just people affirming g their small worlds.” Among other things.

Actually they both sound equally dubious to me. Because neither is based on a scientific theory. Same as fairies and intergalactic mushroom men from the planet cromulous 4.

I tell you what angers me, staples. Don’t know why they just make me mad. Fucking staples, it’s not right! It’s not fair!

There’s a sacred geometry of chance by the way, well I say sacred, esoteric is more apt.

Instead of just denouncing this guy using lazy ad homs I took the time to look into the background of drunvolo over the course of a couple days. While I cannot say for sure, this guy may be be representing the agenda. It looks like he plaigerised this info (the science part) from someone else. And when I was trying out one of his meditations I got a weird feeling in my right eye (love; the left is intention), though it was powerful in a certain sense (and I think with a few minor tweaks could be perfectly viable.)

Anyways, just another instance of me doing all the work.

yeah, you’re the one that cares about this topic, you’re the one that believes in it, obviously you’re the one that does the work. why the hell would somebody who doesn’t care about it as much do all the work? what kinda nonsense premises are you starting from that gave you the idea that someone else should do the work?

Clearly you’re cool with making posts where you’re just taking a guess.

I refuse to do that. I expect everyone who bothered to post in this thread with no evidence at all stating claims to, as philosophers, back up those claims.

But people seem to think the harder to believe as beyond requiring an argument or evidence to denounce, which is just fucking dumb.

I’ve noticed a lot of my posts attract those types who hate having to think for themselves and are looking for an emotional payoff that re-establishes their worldview through some one-paragraph post.

You basically asked ‘why would we have to think for ourselves’ lol. That is pretty funny.

just taking a guess? what was a guess about it?

if you have to make up things i’m saying in order to give yourself a reason to laugh at me, your case isn’t looking so hot.

and what i’ve asked was more like “why should we think for you?” instead of “why should we think for ourselves?” you seem upset that we didn’t do the research into this guy that we’re not really interested in. you don’t seem to grasp the concept of incentive – what incentive do we have to do some research into some kid who makes shitty youtube videos without much reasoning or evidence behind them? why would you think we would do that? why would that even cross your mind as a possibility? how often do you do loads of research into things you don’t care about?

This is a bit off-topic, but what is it about the Golden Ratio that is supposed to be so aesthetically pleasing? I don’t find it comfortable to my eye at all, as my preference in aesthetics has always been perfect symmetry.

Watch the videos and find out.

This is just a summary of your feelings towards this subject. You haven’t described why you think anything he’s said is wrong; you just said things like ‘That’s not going to fly’ when, in fact, what you’re saying isn’t going to fly.

No one that I know of, worldwide, has shown an error with the math presented. At least not fundamentally. It’s seemingly unquestioned at this point; furthermore, it’s seemingly from another source anyways, which means his opinions on flying disks and stuff is even more irrelevant than it was the first time.

Let’s look at the bold part in the quote where you defeat yourself because you’re totally right: It is irrelevant: the math has nothing to do with the guy and the flying circles. Separating the argument from the person is like philosophy 101. You failed to do that, and you failed to argue why you think the math is incorrect.