Hyper-dimensional Mirror Realities

[Ecmandu]

There are 4 ways to make utopia:

Philosophic zombie universes
Marrionette universes (using philosophic zombies)
Hallucinating reality from platonic forms
Hyper-dimensional Mirror Realities

I'll explain the first three, and why they are not utopian.

A philosophic zombie universe requires what's called a super-task. From a single point, you build your entire eternity. Philosophic zombies aren't sentient beings, but they act and feel like sentient beings in every way. The problem here, is that you're stuck in this forever, without the ability to push the stop button at any point whatsoever forever. Since you built that algorithm of your fate and just stepped into it (finite thing that processes infinitely. Any degree of ignorance here is inescapable, unless you have a benign outside witness who can pull you out of it if you desire not to be in it. In philosophic zombie universes, you are required to write the entire script, at one point. But if you have a benign outside witness, you can certainly have a malevolent one as well. This type ultimately cannot be a utopia.

Marrionette universes use philosophic zombies, but rather than the whole thing being written at once as a super task, your are always writing it as you go. There are no suprizes in marionette universes, and the require massive amounts of work for every moment. NO REST! ALWAYS KNOW WHATS GOING TO HAPPEN AT EVERY INSTANT!

Hallucinating reality from platonic forms: This is what we're already doing. Not only is it not eutopic, it's vulnerable to other beings interfering against our will. It's also chaotic in nature to a large extent, until we learn to completely control our minds. It's too much work, just like marionette universes.

Hyper-dimensional mirror realities:

This option has no loopholes for other beings to invade us against our will. We are using our own platonic forms and infusing the entire eternal form (which outside beings cannot access) with hyper dimensional mirrors, mirrors that only reflect the other eternal forms, instead of interacting with their actual being. By reflecting eternal forms, we conserve all the work of creating these beings, as in philosophic zombie universes and marionette universes, and have a live feed to that beings eternal form. If we want certain limits on the way these beings respond to us, we simply change the shape of the mirror and by changing the reflection of their spirit or consciousness signatures, we can assure that the world works exactly the way we always desire it, forever, without it affecting any other possible being in a way it doesn't desire.

Hyper dimensional mirrors are thus called because they are mirrors that work on every possible dimension of being.

With a two dimensional mirror, if you caress your face, or with mirrors back to back on each other with someone standing there, you caress their face, nobody feels it. It's just a reflection.

Hyperdimensional mirrors reflect all of this:

All platonic forms in 3D instead of 2D space
All 5 senses
Consciousness signatures (we all have unique ones, just like finger prints)
Spirit signatures

One really cool thing you can do in hyper dimensional mirror worlds is that you can walk around as an observer to your whole life story, or anyones life story, and you can even watch how yours is "destined" in the old system without actually having to go through it, you can watch what ASSHOLE *cough* GOD planned for you as it's hyper dimensional mirror image, and then you can do whatever you want without having to go through this "plan" *cough* asshole *cough* god. Once you see what ASSHOLE *cough* GOD, planned for you, you can then say to yourself, "fuck I'm glad I didn't have to actually go through that stupid shit"

With spirit signatures, you can have angels give you the best life, without actually doing anything to them, they are simply hyper dimensional mirror reflections of themselves to suit your desires, and the level of intimacy or difficulty you desire.

Another cool thing you can do in hyper dimensional mirror realities is to literally swipe, like on a cellphone, a hyper dimensional mirror image of anyone else's hyper dimensional mirror reality. Let's say someone wrote a really cool song, in their hyper dimensional mirror reality, you can take that song and import it back to your hyper dimensional mirror reality. You can even set the hyper dimensional image of their hyper dimensional mirror reality to variations (instead of simply watching the show as it unfolds ), and actually talk to them outside of their own "script" in their hyper dimensional mirror world. That's one of the dimensions, consciousness signature feeds.

You can literally watch also, your exact past, like a ghost, or you can turn any point of that past into variation on themes, and actually talk to the people as they are or how you want them to be, without changing an essence of who they are, and without hurting anyone in the process.

Complete executive control, complete will to power. Absolute, no harm system.

I'll give you my password for hyper dimensional mirror realities, so you know it's not another being besides you.

[Ecmandu]

I wanted to add to this:

Everyone also has, as a dimension, a body signature and a narrative signature.

This allows you to change bodies (including your own) at will. It also allows for object permanence (stories that don't break continuity), you can reflect different signatures as well, for all of this stuff, by changing the structure of the mirror reflecting the eternal forms.

The hyperdimensional mirror is structured only to respond to the will of the one person for their one reality.

Also: since everything is a reflection of the eternal form, it's impossible to hurt or damage even a bacterium on any of the continuums of that eternal form, which, can be severely harmed.

[surreptitious75]

Can you provide any hard empirical evidence for any of these Utopian ideals because less you can then they are all just worthless
Convincing yourself that they exist or have the potential to exist is all very well but I need some real world application here Eccy
Show me how any of these wonderful visions can be translated from within your imagination into the reality of the here and now

[Ecmandu]

Can you provide any hard empirical evidence for any of these Utopian ideals because less you can then they are all just worthless
Convincing yourself that they exist or have the potential to exist is all very well but I need some real world application here Eccy
Show me how any of these wonderful visions can be translated from within your imagination into the reality of the here and now

The eternal forms must exist, discrete never beginnings and never endings, and if they didn't, it would be impossible to discern anything from absolute continuum, or analog.

We all have eternal forms of ourselves as well, the ability to interfere with this, hurt it, is as impossible to hurt as "triangleness" is.

However, the deepest form we have, is not the only way that we express in existence, and these other ways can certainly by hurt.

Mirrors certainly exist.

If a mirror exists in only 2D, why not 3D and beyond?

These are ingredients of existence.

I often tell people, "we have great ingredients, but a horrific recipe"

Everyone's taste is different, but all of us can agree that it's a horrific recipe here.

The goal is to be able to take all the ingredients that we want and make a perfect recipe for ourselves.

Anything that we can do with technology, we can do with spirit.

We have the capacity to make 100% consensual realities with our spirit.

We can do this indefinitely, as the cosmos is a perpetual motion machine. If we tap into that with our will, we can all be in utopia forever.

[promethean75]

maybe you didn't get the memo, ecmandu. there was a votskovkian-pendal fracture in the 3d mirror governing the planck transfers between the fifth and eleventh string... so in at least two realities it is impossible to avoid consent violation. i can't believe you don't know this! it's like common knowledge among incel physicists seeking logically possible worlds in which everyone gets laid.

well, that's not entirely true. the mathematical models show a possibility of what's called a netepial vector shift through which time continuum breaches due to a VP fracture in disjunctive strings can be resolved. it's not completely worked out, but there's a lot of optimism.

[Ecmandu]

maybe you didn't get the memo, ecmandu. there was a votskovkian-pendal fracture in the 3d mirror governing the planck transfers between the fifth and eleventh string... so in at least two realities it is impossible to avoid consent violation. i can't believe you don't know this! it's like common knowledge among incel physicists seeking logically possible worlds in which everyone gets laid.

well, that's not entirely true. the mathematical models show a possibility of what's called a netepial vector shift through which time continuum breaches due to a VP fracture in disjunctive strings can be resolved. it's not completely worked out, but there's a lot of optimism.

If that was good parody, I'd laugh my ass off. Unfortunately, you're just stretching.

Think about it this way.

My hyperdimensional mirrors are at a minimum, logically consistent in the realm of imagination.

So what does that speak of a hypothetical creator that hypothetically made the best possible reality?

Not much.

[promethean75]

you know how i know you're a fruitcake, ecman? it's not because of the bizarre nature of your ideas. that's perfectly normal in doing philosophy. it's the fact that you are so immersed in this nonsense that you aren't able to realize the fact that none of us know what the fuck you're talking about... and yet you keep right on going in the reverie as if anybody is following you. now many, but not all, whackjob philosophers and thinkers have made an effort to lay out before an audience a series of conclusions they believed they've come to through what they conceive as valid and sound reasoning. most of it isn't, mind you, but that's not the point. the point is, they are not so nuts that they are unable to realize how their ideas might appear to some as bullshit, and so make a genuine attempt to thoroughly explain what they mean. take plato, for example. in the dialogues he puts forth a series of sophisticated arguments that are supposed to support his idea of the Forms. now even though his theory is bizarre and not the slightest bit falsifiable or verifiable, it's still a very well formulated system of bologna. this is because in addition to being a whackjob, plato was also cognizant of the difficulty involved in understanding his particular brand of nonsense, and so made great efforts to support it with what he believed were good reasons.

but i'll give you this pardon; even if you did attempt to devise a complete philosophy, the very axioms you started with would not, themselves, be granted or self evident. unless you pulled a spinoza and dropped a bombshell of deductive truths and definitions and then managed to build out of these an argument that 'all sex is rape' or 'existence is bad because consent is violated', you don't stand a chance of being taken seriously even by the most amateur thinkers.

you have what i call the L. Ron Cupboard syndrome, and this is a disease that happens to thinkers who dabble in a variety of fields and then compile a system of not well understood ideas and facts from each, into a grand philosophical narrative that ends up becoming a mish-mash of nonsense.

[surreptitious75]

The goal is to be able to take all the ingredients that we want and make a perfect recipe for ourselves

We can do this indefinitely as the cosmos is a perpetual motion machine

We are not in any position at all to be able to manipulate the fundamental laws of nature to our satisfaction
The cosmos might be a perpetual motion machine but we do not have any say in how that actually functions

And we cannot do anything indefinitely anyway because it would require the abolition of entropy which is a fundamental law of nature
In another five billion years when the Sun dies there will be no life on Earth so any infinity we experienced would be very short indeed

[Ecmandu]

The goal is to be able to take all the ingredients that we want and make a perfect recipe for ourselves

We can do this indefinitely as the cosmos is a perpetual motion machine

We are not in any position at all to be able to manipulate the fundamental laws of nature to our satisfaction
The cosmos might be a perpetual motion machine but we do not have any say in how that actually functions

And we cannot do anything indefinitely anyway because it would require the abolition of entropy which is a fundamental law of nature
In another five billion years when the Sun dies there will be no life on Earth so any infinity we experienced would be very short indeed

Well... as Einstein said, "imagination is more important than knowledge"

There are actually really big stakes here.

Evil people have the best lives.

I'm not trying to sugar coat that for you.

If there is no hope, the best option is to be evil.

So dig deep into yourself and formulate what kind of cosmos you really think this is.

[surreptitious75]

You live the best life you can and then you spend the rest of eternity dead
That is just the way it is and there is nothing any one can do about it other than accept it unconditionally
Being dead for all of eternity may seem depressing but it is actually the end of suffering in all of its forms

[Ecmandu]

You live the best life you can and then you spend the rest of eternity dead
That is just the way it is and there is nothing any one can do about it other than accept it unconditionally
Being dead for all of eternity may seem depressing but it is actually the end of suffering in all of its forms

If you die forever, then you never existed in the first place. So why bother trying to survive?

For you to die forever, means that your present self never existed as well ... but! You are here!

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but, you live forever. The question is not if, but how.

[surreptitious75]

We dont get to change the fundamental laws of nature just because we dont happen to like them
And life and death are simply different points on the spectrum that balance each other very well
So wanting one to the complete exclusion of the other [ as many do ] is not how it actually works

[Ecmandu]

We dont get to change the fundamental laws of nature just because we dont happen to like them
And life and death are simply different points on the spectrum that balance each other very well
So wanting one to the complete exclusion of the other [ as many do ] is not how it actually works

The laws of nature are logic incarnate ...

If YOU cease to exist after you die ... then the YOU now, is simply a subset of that! Which means that if you cease to be you forever, you couldn't be you now.

Grok?

[Jakob]

Its true that if an identity exist in an absolute way it can't very well cease to exist.

Burden of proof on you Ecman: are entities and identities absolutes? Or are they relative to their circumstances?

(But then, to what are these circumstances relative, if not to entities?)

[Meno_]

We dont get to change the fundamental laws of nature just because we dont happen to like them
And life and death are simply different points on the spectrum that balance each other very well
So wanting one to the complete exclusion of the other [ as many do ] is not how it actually works

The laws of nature are logic incarnate ...

If YOU cease to exist after you die ... then the YOU now, is simply a subset of that! Which means that if you cease to be you forever, you couldn't be you now.

Grok?

In the hyper reality, content and form and existence are concepts . Concepts may have a tendency to manifest to form selves which generate these formal arrangement in general and particular ways, through total redundancy and entropy, meaning we neither lice or die, exist or not, but merely are adoptions of particular arrangements . Time is merely tjesenarranfememts moving the mirrors relative to each other aantjeu are also moving.

This movements is immanent, as soon aananbamtahe point becomes the object . then a transcendence is particularized, meaning. It develops a particular temporal phasic intersubjective. noumina.

This noumina is the simulated reification. in a self defined eternity, with a source in the organic/inorganic fracture of basic atomic/genetic energy diffusion. at that level.

I think Ec is right in describing the effect of this constant mirroring/reflecting diffusion.

We are eternal, and the logic is not, but a source of secondary effect of this process.

We never die, because we never really exist in the first place.

[Ecmandu]

We exist. Reference exists. People teach no self in one breath and then say they never said that in the next, while they are saying it.

This is an adaptation to contradict ones self as conspicuous consumption to attract females in this species.

None of the no self stuff is actually true

[Ecmandu]

We exist. Reference exists. People teach no self in one breath and then say they never said that in the next, while they are saying it.

This is an adaptation to contradict ones self as conspicuous consumption to attract females in this species.

None of the no self stuff is actually true

For example, not even an ad hominem is necessarily a logical fallacy. If the person brings character into a debate... their character is free game.

Every logical fallacy I've ever seen has a convergence point where it breaks down: there are exceptions.

Proofs don't have exceptions.

[Meno_]

We exist. Reference exists. People teach no self in one breath and then say they never said that in the next, while they are saying it.

This is an adaptation to contradict ones self as conspicuous consumption to attract females in this species.

None of the no self stuff is actually true

Its a matter of probability. and if say its 50 50 in the world of determinism.
Opinion does effect outcome. The either or of it has been long established. Its source may stimulate a logical necessity, but certainty is far from established. The entropic regression is simulation from a chaotic redundancy, not viica versa, as in has been demonstrated to occur .
I would disagree to agree.

[surreptitious75]

You dont cease to exist after you die because you still retain your physical form
What ceases is your ability to be conscious and that is what it means to be dead

[Exuberant Teleportation]

This is 1 reason science is so amazing - it gives us the tools and the pieces to create the fictitious! The black hole, the kaleidoscope of inverse properties and extradimensional windows teleports us to those exotic vistas of alternative conjuring. The key though is building the bridge, and we may need contact setup with hyper dimensional alien avatars to activate such a nexus that could thunderbolt us everywhere.

[Exuberant Teleportation]

The frontier is everywhere. The vision is all encompassing. The way is forward. The timeline is at its most cutting edge advantage.

Life is more than just a flat chess board. We are the chess pieces, and we have masterminds over our heads - angels - that guide and steer us various ways. To cut the fabric, and bend the cloth and clockwork that project their effects onto us would glimmer into view the shiny chapters of future eons swimming in our current predicament. We must learn the stars, and reach out for the horizon to blow down old illusions, and gleam these mysterious, extra-dimensional factories hanging over our heads.

[promethean75]

What ceases is your ability to be conscious and that is what it means to be dead

materialism's error is in proceeding a thesis from the foundation of a linguistic misuse of the word 'consciousness', and then denying the consequent of the conclusion reached after the false premise is challenged.

first, that consciousness is an entity or 'property' of the body (error #1). second, that this property ceases to exist when the body ceases to exist (error #2)... or rather, a non-problem, because there isn't a property which can cease existing when the body 'dies'. see how the materialist's conclusion derives from a non-sensical premise in the first place.

'consciousness' is a description of a kind of activity, a behavior, not an entity that 'emerges' out of a system, or is reducible to a system (these are issues of 'correlation', not reducibility), or sits in a brain or 'mind'. but at the same time, immaterialists and/or panpsychists (i.e., chalmers) are burdened with a similar problem. identifying a behavior as constituting an instance of 'consciousness' requires an analogy which takes on meaning only through a shared language. it is not enough to say just because the entity 'p-zombie' acts like i do, it is therefore conscious. i have to be able to attribute to its behavior some intent (dennett's 'intentional systems' essay is good), and i can't do that with a rock or a lion because they don't speak my language ('how can i know the world a lion inhabits?!' - wittgenstein)

both materialism and immaterialism have their share of problems. on that account, usually it's the miserable existential philosophers who insist that when you're dead, you're dead... and the overly anxious philosophers who aren't entirely satisfied with life that insist you move on to something better when you die. both of these characters are a good study in human psychology. but as far as the epistemology of the matter is concerned, it remains open due to an equal number of logical problems with the contending theories.

if there is anything unfortunate about this problem, it's that some asshole who you absolutely loathe might just be eternal. now that would truly suck.