[AntonioLao]

Existence of the entire universe(s) inside the supermind(s).

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Existence of the entire universe(s) inside the supermind(s).

What makes the supermind(s) to exist?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE What makes the supermind(s) to exist?

This is a question that can only be answered by an ultimate TOE.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao This is a question that can only be answered by an ultimate TOE.

Thus, it is a hypothetical proposition.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE Thus, it is a hypothetical proposition.

If I attach 1s and 0s with it, it becomes a mathematical conjecture.

[mkirkpatrick]

You have asked an interesting question, Antonio, why in pairs indeed? Here are
some more interesting ideas, that the code is unlocked via the pineal gland
that (Memories) of long-long ago, are locked up there, and a sequence (lets call
it a chromosome time lapse sequence), which can and does become activated
by secretions from the pineal into the main body matrix. Within the gland are
like tiny crystals, which are sometimes called “brainsand” - this activates areas
within the mind, and sometimes results in an inner - Knowing arising from within
on a par-with In-Tuition. Illumination can occur from this event if it is intense
enough, it would seem that usually it is in the nature of small awakenings, and
can go un-noticed, if you are not self-aware! Two things standout for me
that seem to enable the sequence to unlock and these are: Crisis, and Trauma,
in our lives, crisis seems almost essential to make this occur. What do you think
Antonio!

Kind regards, Michael.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao If I attach 1s and 0s with it, it becomes a mathematical conjecture.

Do so, and I will tell, if it looks any different to me. Sometimes mathematics is not base giving, but base taking.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao What's the philosophical reason for this stability?

The proper logical argumentation that we would find in philosophical logicians would be following:

1. Opposites eliminate each-other.
2. Opposites are always in equal quantities.
_______________________________________

3.Therefore, opposites always eliminate each-other completely.
4. By eliminating each-other completely, opposites make stability.
_______________________________________

5.Therefore, opposites make stability.

In philosophical logic we analyze arguments with a standardized methodology developed by Russell, Hilbert and similars: first check if it is valid, then if it is sound (sound means true). If someone finds that there is a fallacy in this argument, please let me know, but up to what I know it's valid. Now, is it sound? The soundness of an argument is based not on its conclusions or on its process statements; those are studied, but not basis: basis are the start arguments.

And science has already proven the two start arguments to be wrong and false. The first is wrong, because, as the law of thermodynamics states, no mass or energy can be destroyed, thus, its opposite can't eliminate them. And the second is wrong, because, as astronomical observations have proven, there is much less antimatter, than matter in the universe; some physicists (Brian Greene) even believe that the amounts of matter and antimatter where slightly different at the beginning of the universe; thus, it's not a correct statement. So anything derived from these two propositions is wrong and a fallacy.

But the final statement, the statement that opposites make stability, somehow, is not wrong. It is valid for both science and philosophy. Why, would philosophical minds ask, and how, would scientific minds ask, that this can be?

And the solution resides in the mayor problem between science and philosophy. It is that, when science takes statements from philosophy (for them to be true), they must be general, thus, they have no value for it. Whiles, if the statements, taken are precise, they are wrong. When philosophy takes statement from science (for them to be true), they must be precise; thus, they have no value for it. Whiles, if the statements taken are general, they are wrong.

So, science can take the statement, that opposites make stability, which is true for it, but not good at all. But if science takes the precise statement, that opposites eliminate each other and opposites are in equal quantities, then, they are wrong for it.

By the way, the paragraph describing the problem between statements of science and philosophy is aesthetically perfect, in my opinion, and good enough, definitely to be quoted by any contemporary thinker. Or probably one of those physicists that have knowledge but no wisdom, and sell books and become millionaires, and take all the things in the book from others, so I hope none comes and reads my precious paragraph.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE so I hope none comes and reads my precious paragraph.

Don't worry. They are too busy making those millions you talked about.

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick crisis seems almost essential to make this occur.

Crisis between the imbalance of opposites? Within the DNA molecule, this crisis allows the unzipping of the DNA chains and replicated by RNA molecules which can sometimes cause mutations and the creation of mutants (beings of unusual power and ability).

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Don't worry. They are too busy making those millions you talked about.

True, I had forgotten! So we can discuss "opposites" relaxed.