Zury's Videos

Nothing is True AND Everything is True

(AND Something is True)

-for example?

God exists AND God does not exist AND God exist only in a way or sometimes. The same goes for Everything else.
Or, All religions are true AND no religion is true AND only some religions are true (in a particular way at a given point).

-So isn't that just plainly contradictorial?

That's the point, its not
-how so?
-Nothing is true when true meens Always and from every point of view. Everything is true when true means at some point / from some point of view. The truefalsness of everything variates dinamically in timespace of the observer: 0 < > 1. Furthermore, in a fractalic world everything is observer and observed.
-so what's good about seeing the world like that?
-I think that allows for tautologic happiness
-what's that?
-everything can be what it wants, by definition
-why we don't feel that way, I mean I want to be rich and I'm not.
-If you abide to axiom 23, you'd think its better that youre not rich and be happy being poor, because it was better for you so far, which doesn't mean you won't keep on trying to be rich if you still want to, and if you manage to be it, it was better that you became rich. Its the old idea of: "if it was, it was for the better" gam ze hu le tova.
-so by modifying your interpretation of reality, taking always the point of view on which it was better, you arrive to tautologic happiness?
-I think so.
-but wouldn't that be living in a fantasy that has nothing to do with reality?
-not if in reality Nothing is true and everything is true. The architecture of our cosmos either allows or promotes such tautologic happiness, as long as its Better, the cosmos always promotes its own better, the cosmos ultimatelly IS its Best.
Besides, if you look around in the 00s, everything from the Internet, postmodernism, and quantum physics seems to support it. The cosmos has just become flexible enough to allow it, and that's why I'm saying it now.

Well this seems to me just a meaningless contradiction
-Yeah
--No! This is the sacred geometry of our universe, you just need to fractalize more your consciousness to see how it is possible

- Hey, shouldn't it be ZerAllism, instead of zer0ism? What about the whole? didn't you called yourself NiHolistic before? now only nihilistic?
- Great question! well, i think i realized that ZerAllism was implied in Zero.
- Mmmh...how is that?
- Let's see, the existence of Zero implies:

1. That there exist Some (otherwise Zero would be meaningless)
2. That there exist All?
- No! I don't see why, that's an additional concept, even if logically contained by Zero, or by Some.
- Mmmmhh... let's see...let's jump to colors for a moment, I remember thinking that zero was not like Black or White but like Transparent, and that through transparent, every color was equal to itself but more conscious of itself, which is what zero should also be...

- its additional but it Is implied, logically
- you mean a sinthetic a priori statement? wasn't that sufficiently duscussed?
- yeah, but as i remembered, the last thing was Quine, proving analitical statement examples were all actually sinthetic, And since then no one has proved a statement is true a priori.
- does that mean there isn't Implication?
- Oh there is implication, there is Everything, but there is no true a priori, that's about the only thing there isn't, everything needs to be continually tested, not externally, but internally, in a darwinian sort of way.

ZerAllism (or ZerAllAnd) is the geometry of the 00s, Zer0ism is the way to achieve it.