Challenge of mind...

At the exact moment of genesis there was:

1)“abso. intet”,“potential”
2)pure coincidende"begins"self-creating existence"
3)“potential” becomes eternity/infinity

Well, thats all nessesary to give an explaination of the origin of our existense, It answers any question conserning genesis

Of cource you don`t believe it, but the real challenge of mind is that it appears to be true!

If you should find a flaw, tell me, so that I have something to work on!

The trick is not to understand it, but to explain it!

Ask and I will answer!

I guess I can help a little!

“Abso. intet”

To understand it, you must understand something that is far beyond your imagination. But it`s explanation would be “exact opposite of eternity”

“Self-producing eksistense”

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=160625

“potential”

Possibillity of becoming.

“Pure coincidence”

May become a cause, if It`s requirements provided.
Requirements are: No reason, or cause whatsoever.

Okay, I’m quite confused, so firstly, tell me if my interpretations of what you’re trying to say is correct.

Absolute Intent
Are you trying to say that this is God? That, the opposite of eternity being a singularity, is–being charged with a so-called “intent”–in effect, an all-creating, omniscient entity?

Self-Producing Existence
The space-time continuum.

Potential
The probability of quantum decoherence being manifested from a suspended “self-producing” ‘luminiferous aether’; i.e. the space-time continuum.

Pure Coincidence
Um… well… pure coincidence.

No, not quite

“Abso. intet” = “Abso. intet”

“self-creating existence” = “Self-creating existence”

“potential” = “potential”

“Pure coincidence” = “Pure coincidence”

Sorry, for the stupid reply but point is, for what i write to be true, it must consist of what i wrote!

If you are confused, I really dont know if its Me or You who must do an better effort!

And Would not singularity be the opposite of infinity rather than eternity?

If “abso. intet” can only equal itself in the context of written symbols, then it is impossible to derive any real meaning from it. It is a meaningless string of symbols.

If may I add something concerning “A explanation”!

In order to present “a explanation”, so that it is obvious for the “understander” you cannot rely on a perfect philosophy alone no it must have a perfect psychology too.

Example: If you start an explanation of “genesis” with “before there was nothing”, even if the statement is true, you kind of tell the reader from the very beginning, that there is a before.

Because the word “before” singnalises to the brain an actual existence of “before”

So no matter how logical or true the “explanation” really is, you cannot convince him, because the brain signals a feelin of doubt.

Another example is “Non-existing” where would prefere to call only “non”, and with this I at the same time create an effect in the word, since “non” should really be “none” there is a small but important effect, the feeling of something missing!

Something for anyone trying to explain to consider more, maybe!

Yes, now you are talking about “abso. intet”

A little about the psychology I tried to add to my “genesis”

First of all, I choose to start with “At”(no doubt)“the”(it is)“exact”(no doubt)“moment”(the)“of”(from)“genesis”(occure)"was(past)

The word “exact” really isn`t really nesessary, but I added for a little “punch” in the "feeling"of the sentence

“of” creates “movement” within the sentence.
“genesis” is in this moment moved further into “var”(past)

Maybe you understand that I really have put some effort into it

I begun 9 years ago.

I have linked this to several philosophy forums, but no respons, I can see that there have been visitors, but please, philosophy is what i do, give a challenge or compliment.

Do you notice the effect I tried to create by the word “at” placing a “moment”
And I added numbers to the “occured”

If you read them they seem the occur after each other witin a moment.

The moment is in motion though!

This assertion brings conflict for me, for i see “nothingness” being the opposite of “infinity.” Could you explain your reason on the quote?

“abso. intet” is ment to bring conflict to the human mind!

As I see it “nothingness” is also infinite.

Nothingness seems to me to mean the non-existent.