kek, his entire theory is just a redefinition of God as "Nothing", yet everything he said is problematic in the notion of God, e.g. ASKING 'WHY' TO A DECLARATIVE STATEMENT MADE THAT GOD IS THE ONE SOURCE, he cavalierly dismisses that very same logic to the word "Nothing".

God is self contained and requires no justification = Wrong.

Nothing is self contained and requires no justification = Right.

He takes the UNIFIED SOURCE CODE OF GOD, translates the definition from God to 'nothing', then DIVIDES that one source code into 'TWO TYPES'.

An absolute nothing, and a 'net' nothing.

Informationally these two are inconsistent. The absolute nothing has no information. The net nothing has information.

These are not two types of the same logic, they are merely references to an absence of information and to a presence of information.

Everything he says about 'OK if God is the source code, wHaT mAdE God?' is supposedly an 'approved' question with an answer, and yet 'OK if Nothing is the source code, what made that Nothing?' is suddenly verboten and an improper question, yet it is the exact same logic applied to a declarative statement of an AXIOM.

Third pic is where he jumped the shark to 'prove' that 'mathematics has a TRICK' to prove that something can sum to 'net nothing'.

He posts the Euler equation

e exponent i pi plus 1 = 0

This is a semantic not an ontological trick.

Just rewrite the equation to

e exponent i pi = -1

Here one existent is mathematically equivalent to another existent.

To then rearrange the equation so all the terms are one one side and zero on the other is not a demonstration that nothing can exist, it is in fact a demonstration that e exponent i pi is another way of writing negative one.

If I make a pie, then consume a pie, I did not 'create' a nothing just because one made pie plus negative one pie nets to zero pies.

And, at no point was there a nothing. The nothing is a conceptual contradistinction to what is and what was.

The drive to think that one can create something out of nothing IS the God complex that plagues the entire Hegelian insanity that spawned Marxism.

Nothing is by definition absence of existence.

>>17322410

Does the 'thought' of Satan exist?

As above, so below?

"This concept of two worlds, we see it in the media"

Oh then surely it's trustworthy right? /s

>>17322464

Why are you even 'seeing' 'anger', unless you yourself are experiencing it based on what Anon wrote?

To clarify, this Anon is not angry, and will recommend you look within to see why you feel anger at all.

What is my stance?

True North as the benchmark, where I admit the absolute truth that I am INCOMPLETE and KNOW that the 'dualism' casted as inherently problematic is a dialectic inversion of promoting the very dualism in the video of splitting a singular concept of nothing into two by semantic equivocation of the word nothing.

Same word is used to describe two proposals.

"Something you probably do not understand?"

Try me, and find out.

>>17322464

>>17322535

"This paradox, and its resolution, is what generates movement"

This is a Hegelian "I am God" logic where an alleged 'dialectic process' of existence itself is 'discovered' in a single INCOMPLETE mind as God/Geist/Mind describing Himself.

The problem as Godel proved is that you cannot informationally FIT/CONTAIN/COMPLETE infinity into a finite set of axioms and theorems NO MATTER HOW COMPLEX.

Anon paid very close attention to the speaker cavalierly handwaving and dismissing Godel's incomplete proofs, but never engaged Godel's ideas, which to Anon is a signal that Godel's logic IS A THREAT to this "God IS my Mind" Hegelian insanity.

>>17322464

>>17322535

>>17322591

kek, Anon called it. Literally just flipped to the next video, and look how Godel's logic is approached.

By AVOIDANCE.

Not by engagement, but by avoidance.

And the speaker MADE AN ANALYTIC ERROR.

It is NOT true that Godel proved that ALL axiomatic systems are 'incomplete and inconsistent'. Godel in fact proved that sufficiently complex axiomatic systems, such as Principia Mathematica, are EITHER complete but inconsistent, or consistent but incomplete.

Godel NEVER claimed that ALL axiomatic systems are incomplete and inconsistent.

Kmao!

Instead of 'avoiding' Godel, he should have ENGAGED GODEL'S ACTUAL PROOFS FIRST.

And his claim that tautological systems are in contradistinction to axiomatic systems is also wrong, for to introduce and explicate an intelligent system (following Hegel he called it "Idealist") as grounded in tautology, IS ITSELF AN AXIOM OF THAT SYSTEM.

The notion that tautologies are a valid means to produce true outputs IS ITSELF AN AXIOM.

>>17322664

Why not HERE RIGHT NOW?

>>17322689

Your meme making is cringe mockery betraying a concern over the impact of a frog meme.

>>17322688

>YOU ALL TALK ABOUT 'NORMIES' AS IF THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THEM ALL

Wrong, it is a reference to instances of echoes of what is wrong, the narrative intended to 'create' 'normies'.

Q said 'nobody is above another', that is an, ahem, axiom, of humanity.

It's OK to write crazy red text on an anonymous board, but you cannot expect that your red text is any MORE important than everyone else.

>>17322721

>Land and Water is a duality

Kek, this insanity is exactly the insanity of Hegelian logic of seeing 'negations' everywhere, of the butterfly 'negating' the caterpillar, etc, that encouraged Karl Marx to see his own self-alienated divided mind as the mind of Humanity.

All these "I am God" logics are the very same ancient 'dialectic' of the Old Guard that is being dismantled.

Humanity is Unity.

We are all incomplete.

Any attempt by an incomplete mind to aggrandize and take hold of the infinity, is aa Godel proved, will deterministically, mathematically, inevitably become inconsistent systems, and all inconsistent systems can 'prove to self' ANY STATEMENT WHATEVER AS TRUE, INCLUDING 'GENOCIDE BY RACE, GENOCIDE BY RELIGION, AS 'PROVED CORRECT' TO ITSELF.

What USE is a system that can prove to itself it is God and can and ought to decide who lives and who dies and when, be of use to anyone else? Such inconsistent systems belong either in the scrap heap, or if it becomes too belligerent, in prison, or on the lethal injection table.

>>17322774

>"Because they're fascists"

PSYCHO JOE USING SAME COMMUNIST PLAYBOOK RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF OVER 100 MILLION PEOPLE

>>17322792

>One anon can't do much

WRONG!

Aaaaaaaand here is where the error in falsely smearing ALL axiomatic systems as 'inconsistent AND incomplete' pave the way for tautologies to take on 'real substance'.

Develop the 'thought' that Satan exists?

Then Satan exists because you thought it?

Say that a recession is NOT two consecutive quarters of negative GDP, but something else?

Then a recession BECOMES that something else?

This is the core logic fail of ALL systems, LIKE THE SPEAKER'S SYSTEM, of trying to jam pack the infinity which is ONLY in the One Source code from which everything extends, into a complex formal system that is the individual human beings mind.

You end up with inconsistencies/bugs in the logical derivations of 'proofs'.

You end up with massive contradictions society wide of 'philosopher kings' who claim to BE Gods, as they arrogantly flatter themselves as having the mind OF God, that THEIR 'inconsistencies and paradoxes and conflicts and death and destruction and genocide' are somehow all just 'historical mind trying to work itself out THROUGH the minds of the 'philosopher kings'.

THIS division logic IS the 'satanic cult' logic, it IS the 'Old Guard' logic, it IS the very logic whose system bugs are being revealed DIGITALLY BY TECH, the very same information revolution that Godel and others of his time launched worldwide with their discoveries of mathematical logic.

"Tech entrenched on their controls" - Q

Prior to the tech revolution, the inconsistencies were SUPERFICIALLY MASKED, by censorship of opposing views, by destruction of the bodies of opposing political candidates, by intimidation, by threats, by blackmail, by murder, ALL OF WHICH WERE 'PROVED AS JUSTIFIED' FROM WITHIN THE INCONSISTENT SYSTEM that the world trusted in darkness.

Now, WITH UNCENSORED engagements, the INFORMATION OUTPUTTED AND FED BACK INTO THE SYSTEM CAN BE DETECTED AS HAVING UNNECESSARY NOISE BETWEEN THE ONE SOURCE AND ALL RECEIVERS.

NCSWIC

>>17322889

>You are correct it's not a recession

I never said there wasn't a recession.

A recession is still two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

The other items in your list: They are all linked with an 'and' including to what I wrote.

That's another thing. The semantic outcome of the 'dialectic' logic of treating all information object instances as 'negating' the others, with conjunction link of but, or nevertheless, or yet, or however, WHEN THE WHOLE TIME THEY'RE ALMOST ALWAYS 'AND'.

Do you really believe that ADDING words to the definition of recession 'negates' the existence of them when they occur?

The whole rotten temple is diseased to its core. Buts and Howevers and Yets everywhere there should be AND.

>>17322890

YOUR TWEET RIGHT THERE RANDI WEINGARTEN IS HOW 'ANTI-SEMITISM TAKES ROOT

By taking a person's name, George Soros, AND ASSOCIATING BY INVOKING YOUR OWN DIALECTIC INVERSION INTRODUCING THE NARRATIVE OF 'ANTI-SEMITISM' BY 'SEEING' IT OUTSIDE YOUR OWN MIND AND IN THE MINDS OF ANYONE MENTIONING AN INDIVIDUAL BY PROPER NAME.

No, it is NOT 'anti-semitic' to either criticize or hold to account an individual for their individual choices and actions.

It IS 'anti-semitic' TO INVOKE ANTI-SEMITISM NARRATIVE IN RESPONSE TO USAGES OF PROPER NAMES.

Is criticizing Jeffrey EPSTEIN for his ACTIONS considered 'anti-semitic'? Anyone who says THAT would be the worst anti-Semitism narrative pushers regardless of their own background, because they would be ASSOCIATING pedophilia and child trafficking to 'Jewish people', instead of to Jeffrey Epstein.

When Randi Wiengarten tweets

"THIS Is how anti Semitism takes root"

THAT TWEET ITSELF IS AN INTRODUCTION OF ANTI-SEMITIC NARRATIVE.

Jerry Nadler same thing. HE IS LITERALLY INVOKING THE ANTI-SEMITIC TROPE HE CLAIMS TO 'SEE' IN RUBIO EVEN MENTIONING SOROS.

Soros backed means and only means Soros funded.

It has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OTHER JEWISH PERSON EVER IN HUMAN HISTORY.

Holy shit was Q right. Focus on the loudest! They are themselves introducing the very bad thing they are claiming exists outside their own minds in other people.

>>17322890

>What is a Soros backed prosecutor?

>Do you mean Jewish?

Look at how this snake tries to ex post facto DEFINE defining Soros backed as defining Jew backed.

THEY ARE ALL INVOKING THE VERY ANTI-SEMITIC NARRATIVE THEY SMEARED RUBIO WITH.