LimitationsSo I said the theories here make up "the answer to life". Is this then like a religion? Well... no. It is true that we talk about spiritual matters, but this is more of a science. The only place where it is not a "science" is where it simply rests on logic itself but talks about unmeasurable things. But then math too talks about unmeasurable things and rests on logic. Just because you can't weigh or measure the length of an equation, doesn't mean that maths is the same as philosophy. Maths is true, because it rests on logic. And freeism is the same way, even when it talks about spirit. The theories are true because it all rests on logic and uses everyday real life experiences to prove stuff. Nothing is based on experiences that are not easily accessable to everyone. For example, the ability to "choose". We all can choose, so that is an experience everyone has. I do lots of reasoning and theories around the ability to choose. But they all rest on the assumption that we are simply free to choose, that we are not meaningless machines following mathematical equations to the end of eternity. I mean try going to any place where there is a lot of emotion flowing around, and telling them that they are all machines, and they are doing all these things simply because they are obeying mathematical equations. It won't work. Like a football game, or a dance club, or whatever. Try telling a cheering football crowd that they are cheering simply because they are following mathematical equations. They'll tell you you are "bleedin stupid". And they'd be right. Believing that we are machines doesn't work because it doesn't make sense or reflect reality. It doesn't reflect the energy or aliveness of reality. Saying that we are free to choose however, DOES reflect reality properly. And from that assumption, I do logic around the ability to choose, figuring out what kind of choices are possible, and what kind of moralities are possible. That is what makes these theories true. Besides, not only do these theories agree with reality in terms of conclusion, they make more sense than the underlying assumption in modern science, which is that "Everything is made out of other things, FOREVER". Meaning you end up with an infinitely complex equation to describe everything. It is simply illogical and impossible for everything to be composed of smaller, or earlier things. At some point you need to get the smallest, or first thing. Something that "just exists". And that first thing that "just exists" is spirit. Spirit doesn't need something else to make it exist, because it just exists. We aren't "ists". Believing in this information doesn't make you an "answerist" or a "freeist"... And besides, the term "freeist", has already been used for a totally different meaning. Freeist means a specific kind of morality, like cruel or isolationist or angel. I know it ends with "ist", but the fact is it sounded cool. And "isolationist" also ends with "ist", and that too is meant by me to mean a specific kind of morality. The reason that "people who believe this information" don't need a name... is because... well what is the name for people who believe in "Darwin's theory of evolution"? Evolutionists? Or people who believe in "general relativity"? Relativists? Or in quantum mechanics? Quantumists? What if you believe in all of them like most scientists do? You'll end up being a lot of "ists"... You normally call these people "someone who believes in evolution", or "someone who believes in quantum mechanics". So it's the same for my theories. They are just "people who believe in these theories". I mean I have 5 theories but no "good" overall name for them, just yet. You could say "someone who believes in the 3D morality map", that sounds good, even if it's only one of my 5 theories. But "someone who believes in freeism"... well I dunno, it doesn't sound as good. The information here ALL comes from logic and is provable... none of it rests on faith, none of it is some wierd part of any believer's identity any more than believing in electricity is part of your identity. We believe these theories because they make sense, and add up, and even a logic processor program could understand them. The same for any information based on logic, whether math or science. There are some information on the website that I have not given my proof for on the website (although it might be buried somewhere in the forum). And in these cases you should simply not believe or disbelieve them, unless you can figure out the reason for yourself (which would be hard). The reason I haven't always given the proof is simply time. My time and more importantly, the reader's time! But when asked about anything specific I will always explain myself. It would be easier to ask me than to try figure it out yourself I imagine. I DO make mistakes. But in fact my mistakes are very rare, and I can't remember one that that didn't pull us closer towards the correct answer. For example, I once said there was 14 classes of being, not 12. That was a mistake. Does it mean I shouldn't have been listened to or the theories were worthless? Nope. Because the answer 12 could only have been gotten to, through the answer 14. Check my page on the morality map to see how I came to the answer 12. You'll see that the last step before the final answer of 12 was 14. |
|
Last modified: Thursday 22/10/2009 09:35
Powered by my handy self made content management system in php ;)