Triadic First Principle(s)

The word ‘alone’ means or refers to ‘one’ only. Again, the Fact that there is and could only be One Universe only means that It is alone.

Also, The Fact that it can also be said and argued that there is, literally, only the One only Universe, which is not actually ‘separated’ at all, and thus this means that there is NO united/unity neither, because there is NO actual ‘other thing’ than the Universe, Itself. In other words, ALL of the ‘things’ that are perceived to be separate or apart from the Universe are, in fact, NOT in actuality but only in perception or thought only.

But, one needs to go ‘much deeper’, as it is sometimes said, to understand this fully.

I will have to change this obviously.

There is nothing that could refute the One Universe existing alone.

But, everyone is obviously absolutely free to ‘try to’.

And, as always, I wait for a discussion.

You’re talking about the UNIverse…right?

Yes we can call It that.

Are you making fun of my first principles because they’re so airtight that only goofy stuff can be said against them?

If they are so so-called ‘airtight’, then why did they sink and drown, completely, when I let the ‘air’ out of them?

And, the fact that you have not even attempted to counter or refute what I have said and shown that refuted your claims, reveals far more here than you would really like.

universe

noun

uk

/ˈjuː.nɪ.vɜːs/ us

/ˈjuː.nə.vɝːs/

Add to word list

B1 [ S ]

everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space:

Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? (Fuckin hope so).

No system exists in isolation, therefore, nothing is ever alone. The universe is not a “thing”, it is “everything”. For all we know, it could be infinite, so we might as well treat it as such.

The reason this thread is called “Triadic First Principles”, is because of the idea that the universe is Triadic (everything is controlled by three major influences that are co-dependent, or at least give rise to coherence which is reliant on the relationship between the three).

The current line of inquiry, which you responded blindly to, is centered around “C Theory”, an interpretation of time with provision for omnitemporality.

Now, I’m not going to say that I even understand it all, but I do find it extremely interesting, even though I would rather not. I at least read this:

https://philpapers.org/archive/MCTTUO.pdf

It’s quite a remarkable article from 1908 which covers a lot regarding interpretations of time.

1 Like

This thread is not specifically about C Theory. But. The first principles wouldn’t be a thing unless C Theory is the case (& vice versa).

:face_with_spiral_eyes:

I’ll give one back to myself.

My last reply. Untouched by anew1’s replies.

If you want to make it about the universe, and assuming I even understand this…

being △ action △ quality

applied to the universe is:

fields (unquantized, subsumes limits, limitless) △ (photonic) excitations/quantizing △ symmetry groups (not so much rules as permissions)

every aspect is triadic, though — you have to have all three distinctly to have one/unity

[Symmetry groups aren’t choosers, only permitters. That’s why agency is still required for quantizing.]

Although the 3, the so-called “father”, “son”, and “holy ghost” fit in perfectly with the G.U.T.O.E., but only when they are worded Correctly, and not ‘paternalistic’, will also fits in perfectly with “tesla’s” 3,6, and 9, ‘trying to’ fit them in with the very out-dated and narrowed distorted biblical misinterpreted version is NEVER EVER going to work. As the last nearly two thousand years have proved so.

When the ‘adult’, ‘child’, and ‘Mind’, which is the True version, is ‘look at’ from the 6th sense, that is from the Mind’s Eye perspective, then things start to become much more clearer and much easier and simpler to see, understand, and KNOW.

okay

15 characters

Was this bridge your reaction:

… because a bridge that prioritizes tolerance and impartiality of perspectives is a bridge to nowhere you’d rather just jump off of… because it’s kinda like common ground with land mines of lies in it, ready to blow up?

…what if we favored clarity that is compassionate enough to tell the truth without blatantly insulting people? …like I myself did in our conversation (did I ever insult you?)… and you still weren’t having it.

Who knew? How? Why?

brb… gonna update the 3 axioms in first quote