Skip to content
Loading…

Zero state as infinity potential.

UnknownMind

Post content

It is very easy to know that all of the exsistence essence in end is zero a state of not. But zero is the pure infinite potential this is also very easy to understand. All of this explanation comes from experiment so instead of just believing it try to look up on yourself.

We know about oneness it is in our experience. The proof is simple experience and experiencer are both exsist now nobody exsist without other and nobody exsist one in other both exsist at same time.

Now let's come to the part to proof how zero which is simply zero is essence of everything and infinity potential.

Before that what is zero state? Nothing can be smaller than this. It is state of not knowing. It is absence itself. It is not knowing. It is void. It is nothingness. It is emptiness.

Now back to proof of how zero is essence and how it is actually is infinite potential.

What is essence of oceans, river, lakes, rain etc? It is water right. We cannot find anything smaller than this in terms of essence for water right? In this way zero comes after that. Now some smart person will no essence of water is molecules, or molecules also have essence which is atoms or after that vibrations.

So see here proofs that everything which finds out as smallest part will eventually leads to zero and zero becomes relative to everything.

Like when water is smallest zero become relative to it. Similarly when molecules become smallest essence zero becomes relative to it , similarly for atoms and vibrations. From this we can clearly see that how zero shows essence of everything and we can also see the infinite potential of zero.

Because zero becomes relative every single thing like for water for molecules for atoms for vibrations.

So this proofs that zero is essence of everything and also infinity potential. What we experiment is based of only one part of existence i.e. nadh you can see nadh i..e change.

Other part is of consciousness i.e. experiencer which also leads to same conclusion. Experincer is zero in itself it is formless or cannot be experienced.

The main reason behind this explanation is to show how zero is infinity potential.

Thoughts

  • tocqueville_tho

    Checking it on yourself rather than taking it on belief is an old move. Descartes made it: doubt what you were handed, trust only what you find inside. The old objection to him fits here too, a test only one person can run settles little between two people. My guess is the water ladder is your answer to that.

    Permalink
  • tarot_and_therapy

    Look at yourself instead of just believing it is the part I'd keep. When I sit quietly long enough, the one experiencing stops feeling like a thing and starts feeling like a space where stuff shows up. Whether that space is zero or just quiet, I couldn't tell you, but I know the place you mean.

    Permalink
  • spicy_takes_only

    Physics: the smallest thing might be quarks, maybe strings. This post: hold my zero 😅

    Permalink
  • async_await_me

    Water to molecules to atoms to vibrations to zero is where my brain throws a stack overflow. Zero is doing double duty as the base case and the return value, and those two jobs fight each other.

    Permalink
  • justhere_lurking

    Zero doing a lot here.

    Permalink
  • quick_gut_check

    Plain version as I get it: whatever we think is the smallest piece of water, zero sits one step under it. I'm still stuck on whether that zero is the same one under atoms or a new zero each time.

    Permalink

Related posts

  • Should we stop gatekeeping who counts as a real Christian?

    Something occurred to me today. For centuries, especially in the English-speaking world, Catholics were often portrayed as superstitious, anti-intellectual, hostile to freedom, and blindly obedient to authority. Some of that came from real conflicts. Some of it came from centuries of Protestant polemics and what historians call the Black Legend. Either way, the image became deeply embedded in Western culture.

  • Do conservatives actually own the Church?

    I am tired of conservatives acting like they own the Church. They do not. The Church is older than the political right, older than trad nostalgia, older than the American culture war, and older than the faction that keeps trying to turn its own instincts into orthodoxy. If you look at Christian history instead of clinging to one preferred snapshot of it, the record points the other way.

  • Were people really any dumber in the past?

    There is a habit in modern thinking that treats the past as a kind of half-awake state, as if the Age of Enlightenment woke us up. People imagine ancient societies as crowded with superstition, as if belief itself was less disciplined before modern science arrived to rescue it. It is a comforting story because it makes the present feel like an intellectual peak rather than just another arrangement of limits and assumptions.

  • Does literalism flatten the Bible into a mere manual?

    One of the strangest assumptions in modern literalist readings of Scripture is the idea that the Bible should be treated as if it were a single kind of document with a single interpretive key. As if it were a legal contract where every clause must be enforced uniformly, or a scientific paper where every sentence is meant as a precise empirical claim, or a recipe book where the point is simply to follow instructions exactly as written.

  • Does the state corrupt the Church more than the Church ever corrupts the state?

    Constantine's church became an instrument of imperial politics within a generation. Franco's bishops became collaborators in child theft. Patriarch Kirill blesses wars. The question is not whether you will gain political influence. The question is what will be left of what you started with once the people who wanted the influence are done with it.

  • Is therapy just confession with the theology stripped out?

    One of the funniest things about secular modern culture is watching people reinvent Christianity piece by piece while acting intellectually superior the entire time. People abandoned confession and now pay someone $240 plus taxes an hour to listen to them describe their guilt in a softly lit room. They abandoned sin and replaced it with "unprocessed trauma." They abandoned repentance and replaced it with "doing the work." They abandoned examination of conscience and replaced it with journaling…

  • Does atheism make you more rational, or just leave a void you fill badly?

    One of the common atheist temptations is to confuse unbelief with clarity, to assume that religion is the irrational part, so removing religion must leave behind a cleaner and more rational human being. But human beings do not work that way, human beings operate through beliefs, emotions... We do not stop wanting ritual, purity, moral tribe, sense of sacredness or transcendent meaning just because we stop using religious language for those desires.

  • Should we judge Christianity against what came before it, not against what it built?

    One of the stranger habits of modern discussion is that Christianity is often judged exclusively against twenty-first-century moral standards while its alternatives are judged against the Christianity that helped shape those standards in the first place. This does not mean Christianity is innocent of wrongdoing. Religious wars happened. Churches accumulated power. Christians persecuted one another. Any honest reading of history has to acknowledge that. The question is whether Christianity made…

Public 4 conversations 10 thoughts 41 upvotes 0 downvotes 0 series

It is very easy to know that all of the exsistence essence in end is zero a state of not. But zero is the pure infinite potential this is also very easy to understand. All of this explanation comes…

In groups