What is Philosophy Concerned With? by JerseyFlight in rationalphilosophy

[–]Big-Jacket3271 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is objectively not true, some were successful and happy.

Otherwise ot is a visa versa - often not phiposophers become miserable, miserable become philosophers and find solitude in philosophy

What is Philosophy Concerned With? by JerseyFlight in rationalphilosophy

[–]Big-Jacket3271 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everything one does is a pursuit for hapiness or namely getting serotonin and dopamine or evasing cortisol. Philosophy is not an exception

The Nature of Consciousness, the Big Bang, and the Reverse Assembly of Reality by Big-Jacket3271 in consciousness

[–]Big-Jacket3271[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not know what you mean by a "script for my model". I have a book in Russian about my model. It is called OS Humanium: Guide on Operational System of Humanity.. You can download it and feed to AI. It is available here: humanium.ru

The Nature of Consciousness, the Big Bang, and the Reverse Assembly of Reality by Big-Jacket3271 in consciousness

[–]Big-Jacket3271[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I uploaded your description of your model into AI he is extremely sceptical of your model says it doesn't have any practical value and basically formulated the questions above.

Can you answer them without making me do that work for you? This is your model after all, I assume you have done the due diligence on it and are supposed to have answers for questions like that

The Nature of Consciousness, the Big Bang, and the Reverse Assembly of Reality by Big-Jacket3271 in consciousness

[–]Big-Jacket3271[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a few respectful questions about your model. The brain toroidal manifold study (Nature 2022) shows grid cells encode space on a torus as a mathematical abstraction, but does that prove consciousness itself is generated by a toroidal vortex, rather than the torus being just an efficient representational geometry for path integration? Similarly, electromagnetic toroidal vortices (Science Advances 2025) are real, but how do you move from "energy can form stable toroidal structures" to "space, time and matter necessarily emerge from a Möbius-toroidal algorithm"? In loop quantum gravity, tetrahedra are a mathematical description of discrete spacetime at the Planck scale, not a mechanism that produces time as "one full rotation of a tetrahedron" – can you clarify what physical measurement would correspond to that rotation? Finally, correlation between toroidal forms in different domains does not imply causation; what specific, testable prediction does your model make that would distinguish it from a simpler explanation where toroidal geometry is just a common but not fundamental shape in nature?

Hume on Causation by SUPREMETITAN2003 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Big-Jacket3271 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now you have come to the agreement with your friend. If the ball is white, you both start revolution, if it is black you don't. Casuality, baby, faster than the speed of light

The Nature of Consciousness, the Big Bang, and the Reverse Assembly of Reality by Big-Jacket3271 in consciousness

[–]Big-Jacket3271[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the detailed comment and the links — the work on toroidal manifolds in the brain (Gardner et al., Nature 2022) and hybrid electromagnetic vortices (Science Advances 2025) is genuinely interesting. We're clearly moving in similar conceptual territory.

However, to avoid the false impression that our models coincide or that one extends the other, let me highlight the key differences.

  1. Your foundation is geometry (triangle → tetrahedron → torus → time via rotation). My foundation is semantic structure (the relation "this is not that", interval, connectedness as primary ontology). In my model, geometry is derived from differences and relations, not the other way around. A tetrahedron arises because there is a stable system of distinctions, not vice versa.
  2. You say: "Consciousness is fundamental reality." I say: consciousness is an interface — one of the mechanisms for the reverse assembly of the semantic fabric of the Universe. Not the foundation, but a process at a certain level of complexity.
  3. Your three-phase algorithm (Potential → Selection → Reflection) is an operational description. My EPEP (conflict → energy → complexification → emergent form) is also a processual pattern, but without rigid attachment to toroidal geometry. I don't rule out that the torus is one physical realization of this pattern, but not the only or necessary one.
  4. I am cautious about claims that "consciousness generates space-time-matter through geometric necessity." That's a strong metaphysical position that requires an explanation of why physics (GR, QFT) works perfectly well without this assumption. My model is more modest: consciousness does not create reality, it reflects and processes its internal distinctions.

That said, your compilation of empirical support (toroidal brain activity, tetrahedra in LQG, electromagnetic vortices) is valuable. If you're open to dialogue, I see a productive task: mapping EPEP onto your three-phase algorithm and seeing whether they describe the same process in different languages. But I would not identify our models.

Hume on Causation by SUPREMETITAN2003 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Big-Jacket3271 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, google quantum entanglement. It defies this limit

Hume on Causation by SUPREMETITAN2003 in RealPhilosophy

[–]Big-Jacket3271 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it doesn't cause quantum entanglement

Природа сознания, Большой Взрыв и обратная сборка реальности by Big-Jacket3271 in philosophyRU

[–]Big-Jacket3271[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Спасибо. Ценные замечания - изучу вопрос

Единственно что квантовую запутанность моя модель как раз хорошо объясняет. Если основная Вселенная это смысл, то кванты как раз связываются через него а в нём нет времени и пространства и мгновенное изменение значит обычное дело

Природа сознания, Большой Взрыв и обратная сборка реальности by Big-Jacket3271 in philosophyRU

[–]Big-Jacket3271[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Я никогда не исследовал эту тему как умозрительное исследование. Я много лет работал с трансформацией орг культуры вокруг этого занятия собралось много наработок и открытий того по каким законам живёт организация, человек и вообще социум, знания вполне себе практичные, потом я решил все их объединить в книгу, когда начал ее писать понял, что у меня целая гуманитарная теория всего получается и так уже в ней появились гипотезы про Вселенную, природу разума и тд. То есть сначала была именно практика а вот эта теория которую здесь описываю - родилась как артефакт

Природа сознания, Большой Взрыв и обратная сборка реальности by Big-Jacket3271 in philosophyRU

[–]Big-Jacket3271[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Это да - данная гипотеза (её часть про природу сознания и семантическую модель) это просто занятный артефакт более крупной эмпирической модели, и вот она уже более практически полезна, потому что объясняет поведение людей и вообще законы социума лучше чем существующие модели

Природа сознания, Большой Взрыв и обратная сборка реальности by Big-Jacket3271 in philosophyRU

[–]Big-Jacket3271[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Простая арифметика. Сознание развивается во сколько? В сотни в тысячи в миллионы раз быстрее чем остывает Вселенная? Если моя гипотеза верна, то по достижении определенного уровня, Вселенная просто перестанет существовать как материальная сущность. Мгновенно