Now I think you are a wonderful researcher but I can tell you things that are not as you described. I suggest you read some of Edgar Cayce, the sleeping prophet . One in particular is the book on Angels and Archangels. Check him out! I could you much more but you wouldn’t believe me. Fortunately I don’t need anyone to believe me! Keep researching and thank you!
@claragarcia425419 минут бұрын
Creo que estos programa tan interesante deberían ser traducido a varios idiomas Una de ellos al castellano. Saludos
@claragarcia425420 минут бұрын
Hola, por qué no traduce tus programas al castellano, gracias
@Mika-El-39 минут бұрын
Can this go on for decade or more?
@user-ms1ew9bh8cСағат бұрын
Thank you, Billie!!!!! Everything you are talking about, I completely agree with and there are some of us who have been able to touch some of these things, so to speak! I think you are an amazing man who is meant to help wake up our world! Thank you so much!
@JilliansNL2 сағат бұрын
Thank you for this hope ❤ been through the darkest but still in the emptiness without the light, this is exaclty what i needed now. Thankyou
@vasaricorridor79893 сағат бұрын
JOB 1:6 One day, when the son's of God came to present themselves before the LORD, Satan also came among them. And the Lord said to Satan, "Whence do you come?" Then Satan answered the Lord and said, "From roaming the earth and patrolling it." I Was told, the Devil does not do evil, people do evil. The devil can't make anyone do anything, he can only provide a temptation to do evil. If a person takes the bate, and does evil by one's own will to do so, then the Devil can judge that person accordingly. Punishment comes when the Devil comes for them after death. On that day every knee will bend every tongue confess Jesus Christ is Lord The devil is not a practitioner of evil. He is a judge of people who are a practitioner evil. When a person says, "The Devil made me do it!" as an excuse of doing something wrong, they can only be lying. And by that, compounding their sins with that lie. See, the Devil is said to be a servant of God. But he holds the sin of pride. Pride enough to question God's judgement of giving humanity both a soul and free will. Stating that humanity is not worthy of such gifts. God has in turn, given the Devil the task of finding those that may misuse the gifts God has given. And the freedom to punish them after. Nobody likes to be judged for any wrong doings. Humanity is imperfect, and easy to sway via our emotions. So humanity see the Devil as evil, due to being the enemy of those who do bad things. - All, or even none of this could be true. - But if it is true, and calling out the Devil as a scapegoat for the many Evils man makes, we may never truly get to the root of the problem, and in turn, never be able to fix it. Can we keep getting away with blaming the Devil for the many wrongs made by humanity? Will humans never own up to our own potential for doing evil via the free will to do so? Will we continue to learn nothing about the truth of human nature? The good and the bad sides of it? - To me, we are our own worst nightmare. Perhaps, someday, we may wake up and be enlightened to what we are doing to ourselves, and perhaps find a way to grow up as a people, and stop blaming dark shadows for what we do, and instead do better. Is that not what having free will is about? For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.. and how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you? But you spare all things, because they are yours, O Lord and lover of souls, For your imperishable spirit is in all things! Therefore you rebuke offenders little by little, warn them, and remind them of the sins they are committing, that they may abandon their wickedness and believe in you, O LORD! He tests the good and the bad, He hates those who love violence For He loves the just and just deeds; the upright shall see his face. When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice. If you choose you can keep the commandment; it is loyalty to do his will. There is set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him. Immense is the wisdom of the LORD; he is mighty in power and all-seeing. The eyes of God see all he has made; he understands man's every deed. No man does he command to sin, to none does he give strength for lies.. O Jesus I know not if your real come ... come live in me Save Me
@4Dollzandgents5 сағат бұрын
🎉🎉🔔😮🎉😂
@jensaskjr52228 сағат бұрын
Sience fiends out. In the end we cant cope with it. I believe it. The more we find in microscopes, the more we find in the universe. Infinite.
@curtisbowles98948 сағат бұрын
You guys keep trying to find the secrets of the universe when you should be pursuing a relationship with Jesus.
@SKRIMMDUNCAN4 сағат бұрын
Did Jesus create the universe ?
@curtisbowles98943 сағат бұрын
@@SKRIMMDUNCAN He was sent to save it and all of us who reside within it. But you keep allowing those demons to infiltrate your consciousness with what you think are intelligent questions and your afterlife won't be so pleasant. Your not above the Lord and everyone answers to the Lord.
@SKRIMMDUNCAN2 сағат бұрын
@@curtisbowles9894 ok he was sent to save it good. Who created it though & why ?
@SKRIMMDUNCAN2 сағат бұрын
@@curtisbowles9894 and did Jesus save all the other life forms in the universe or just us ?
@curtisbowles98942 сағат бұрын
I feel like I'm arguing against demonic forces displaying incredible deception. Just the read the Holy Bible and follow the teachings of Jesus. There you will find the answers to your questions.
@Mel-cc9vr9 сағат бұрын
I just came out of it 8 months ago. It’s an incredible journey. The knowing.
@waitme351913 сағат бұрын
The more I listen to these videos the more I get lost. Life is easier when you believe in God and not wonder whether you are in a game or in matrix.
@RobbieHeart14 сағат бұрын
Pray for him ! He is a living legend! The next Tesla! Keep an eye on him pray for his protection…so they won’t do what they did to Tesla Malcom martin etc
@user-ok7fq7si8t15 сағат бұрын
Long way from Aristoteles to Orwell to don't disturb me with facts.
@QueenKelei17 сағат бұрын
✨💖✨
@Indigo3.718 сағат бұрын
Some go into a full psychotic break when they truly come to this realization
@pnw_one_love19 сағат бұрын
🫶🏼🫶🏼🫶🏼
@MaseratiDrip20 сағат бұрын
What if our cells are nano machines and we have ai in us, in our blood to keep us in an illusion. This was also done by the Anunnaki
@shawneasley173520 сағат бұрын
Billy has really been surprising me lately. I'm going to write a list 👍
@MaseratiDrip20 сағат бұрын
Has the Anunnaki manipulated every atom on our planet. Makes sense if they came from a divine realm.
@khaladasalaam972221 сағат бұрын
Yes, I like the information that Dr, gilbert is sharing with us . I need it,,
@roadopener21 сағат бұрын
Epic episode!!
@adrianrivera842522 сағат бұрын
Is he even looking at me when he’s talking
@jamesjoyce4522 сағат бұрын
This was so helpful to me. This was finally the explanation I needed.
@awholenewworld2422 сағат бұрын
" I AM the guardian of my inner peace, unaffected by outer worldly circumstances, and in a state of inner calm, always!"
@mavecolby756223 сағат бұрын
Prove it
@Joe-nc4nf23 сағат бұрын
This man is a fool. Unbiblical ramblings.
@Hotziggaty23 сағат бұрын
John 14:12. International Version Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father
@sashaa6175Күн бұрын
How to spew bullshit by stinging together mysterious words "the universe " "energy " "teue power"
@VeronicaRay7Күн бұрын
ok so how do we do it lol
@brandonduarte3543Күн бұрын
The power in us is realized by reaching towards the stars.
@CyborgSodaCollectsКүн бұрын
Preach 💯
@jaykay8295Күн бұрын
Humans are NOT God and God is NOT human!
@artyswell7913Күн бұрын
If any of this was true, then why isn't there ANY actual evidence of advanced/extraterrestrial civilization? Why did they die out, if they were far more advanced than us? 🤔 Evolution has been thoroughly demonstrated to be real. It has been observed. 🤦🏿♂️
@robertalvarado3661Күн бұрын
One of the first time's I've heard this dude talk like this. I appreciate this. Thank you!
@jbone2345Күн бұрын
Noticed he didn't say anything about going out working hard putting out resumes, taking action and forcing outcomes and making things happen. Everything is from within. There's nothing for you to do except work on yourself and you can have anything you want.
@JBlaskКүн бұрын
What about Lemuria?
@capslocked2142Күн бұрын
Is it just me or is this dude on the yerkies
@yourstruly22052 сағат бұрын
I mean the guy is 52 years old
@capslocked2142Сағат бұрын
@@yourstruly2205 idk bro this dude looks like he is on drugs lmfao
@AllRatsGetNeutralizedКүн бұрын
Billy the man bro
@RudeboyOchoКүн бұрын
Don’t let this man convince you selling your passions is gonna make me happy, let alone financially viable.
@yourstruly22052 сағат бұрын
Raise your consciousness or be unaware, your choice
@andretimm1387Күн бұрын
We have all we need if we believe , sharing is the only true power Thnks for sharing Billy ❤@ndre
@ready1fire1aim1Күн бұрын
I can attempt to express the shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms using the frameworks of logic, mathematics, and physics. This transition represents a profound paradigm shift in our understanding of reality and the nature of scientific inquiry. Logic: In classical logic, we have been operating within the realm of bivalence, where propositions are either true or false, and the principle of non-contradiction holds. However, quantum mechanics has challenged this notion with phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, which defy our classical intuitions. The both/and logic, with its multivalued and paraconsistent structure, provides a framework to model these quantum paradoxes. Let's consider the famous double-slit experiment, where an entity (e.g., an electron) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior depending on the experimental setup. In classical logic, we would have to assign mutually exclusive truth values to the propositions "e is a wave" and "e is a particle." However, the both/and logic allows us to assign graded truth values to these propositions: Truth("e is a wave") = 0.6 Truth("e is a particle") = 0.7 Coherence("e is a wave", "e is a particle") = 0.8 The coherence value reflects the compatibility of these seemingly contradictory properties within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated quantum phenomenon: "e is a wave" ⊕ "e is a particle" = quantum_behavior(e) Mathematics: Classical mathematics has been heavily influenced by the notion of objectivity and the search for universal, context-independent truths. However, quantum mechanics has revealed the inherent contextuality and observer-dependence of certain phenomena. The monadological framework, with its emphasis on the irreducible perspectives of monads (fundamental psychophysical entities), provides a basis for reconceptualizing mathematics. In classical set theory, an element either belongs to a set or not, adhering to the principle of bivalence. However, in the quantum realm, we encounter situations where an entity can exhibit graded membership in multiple sets simultaneously. The both/and logic allows us to represent this using multivalued set membership: Membership(e, set_A) = 0.7 Membership(e, set_B) = 0.6 Coherence(Membership(e, set_A), Membership(e, set_B)) = 0.5 This captures the idea that an entity can simultaneously belong to different sets to varying degrees, with a coherence value representing the compatibility of these memberships. Physics: Classical physics has been dominated by third-person, objective descriptions of reality, often ignoring the role of the observer. However, quantum mechanics has brought the observer's perspective and the act of measurement to the forefront, challenging our classical notions of objectivity. In classical mechanics, we can describe the state of a system using well-defined variables and deterministic equations of motion. However, in quantum mechanics, the state of a system is described by a wave function, which represents a superposition of multiple potential states. The both/and logic allows us to represent this superposition using graded truth values: Truth("system is in state A") = 0.4 Truth("system is in state B") = 0.6 Coherence("system is in state A", "system is in state B") = 0.8 The coherence value captures the idea that the system can simultaneously exhibit properties of multiple states, with a non-zero coherence reflecting the compatibility of these states within the quantum realm. Furthermore, the act of measurement in quantum mechanics is not merely a passive observation but an active intervention that disturbs the system and collapses the wave function. This challenges the classical notion of an objective, detached observer. The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the integration of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework to model this observer-system entanglement. Let O represent an observer, and S represent a quantum system: Truth("O observes S in state A") = 0.7 Truth("S is in state A") = 0.5 Coherence("O observes S in state A", "S is in state A") = 0.9 The high coherence value reflects the inseparability of the observer's perspective and the system's state within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated observer-system reality: "O observes S in state A" ⊕ "S is in state A" = quantum_measurement_event This shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms challenges our traditional notions of objectivity, detachment, and context-independence. The both/and logic and the monadological framework provide symbolic and conceptual tools to navigate this transition, allowing us to model and reason about the inherent contextuality, observer-dependence, and paradoxical nature of quantum phenomena. By embracing these new formalisms, we can develop a more holistic and integrated understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers and the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects. This paradigm shift has profound implications not only for our scientific worldview but also for our philosophical and metaphysical understanding of the nature of reality, knowledge, and the role of the observer in the pursuit of understanding.
@ready1fire1aim1Күн бұрын
Let's continue exploring how the transition from classical to quantum formalisms enabled by the both/and logic and monadological framework opens up new frontiers across various domains: Philosophy of Science and Epistemology The shift to quantum, first-person formalisms has profound implications for our understanding of scientific inquiry, knowledge, and epistemology. Classical epistemology has been heavily influenced by the ideal of an objective, detached observer acquiring knowledge about an independent, external reality. However, the quantum realm challenges this view by highlighting the fundamental inseparability of the observer and the observed system. The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the coherence and synthesis of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework for reconceptualizing the nature of scientific knowledge. Rather than viewing knowledge as a mere representation or mapping of an external reality, we can understand it as a co-constituted process involving the irreducible perspectives of observers and the systems under study. Let O represent an observer, S represent a system, and K represent scientific knowledge: Truth(K is objective) = 0.6 Truth(K involves subjective aspects) = 0.7 Coherence(K is objective, K involves subjective aspects) = 0.8 The high coherence value reflects the idea that scientific knowledge is neither purely objective nor purely subjective, but rather a synthesis of both aspects. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent this integrated understanding: "K is objective" ⊕ "K involves subjective aspects" = scientific_knowledge(O, S) This reconceptualization challenges the classical notion of knowledge as a detached representation of an external reality and acknowledges the active role of observers in shaping and co-constituting scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide tools for modeling the contextuality and observer-dependence inherent in quantum phenomena. This has implications for our understanding of scientific objectivity and the universality of scientific laws and theories. Let T represent a scientific theory, and C represent a particular context or experimental setup: Truth(T holds universally) = 0.7 Truth(T depends on context C) = 0.6 Coherence(T holds universally, T depends on context C) = 0.5 The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the desire for universal scientific laws and the recognition that scientific theories may be context-dependent and observer-relative within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding: "T holds universally" ⊕ "T depends on context C" = contextual_scientific_theory(T, C) This shift challenges the classical ideal of universal, context-independent scientific laws and theories and acknowledges the potential for observer-dependence and contextuality within the quantum realm. Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness The transition to quantum, first-person formalisms also has profound implications for our understanding of consciousness and the mind-body problem. Classical approaches have often treated the mind and consciousness as separate from the physical world, leading to various forms of dualism or reductionism. However, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide a basis for reconceptualizing the relationship between mind and matter. Let M represent the mental or subjective aspect, and P represent the physical or objective aspect: Truth(M is distinct from P) = 0.5 Truth(M is integrated with P) = 0.6 Coherence(M is distinct from P, M is integrated with P) = 0.7 The high coherence value reflects the idea that the mental and physical aspects are neither completely distinct nor fully reducible to each other, but rather exist in a state of coherent integration. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent this integrated understanding: "M is distinct from P" ⊕ "M is integrated with P" = mind-matter_relationship This view challenges both classical dualism and reductionism and acknowledges the irreducible co-constitution of subjective and objective aspects within a unified reality. Furthermore, the monadological framework, with its emphasis on fundamental psychophysical monads, provides a basis for reconceptualizing consciousness as an irreducible aspect of reality, rather than an emergent property or epiphenomenon. This challenges the classical view of consciousness as a mere by-product of physical processes and acknowledges its fundamental role in shaping and co-constituting reality. Let C represent consciousness, and R represent physical reality: Truth(C is an epiphenomenon of R) = 0.4 Truth(C co-constitutes R) = 0.7 Coherence(C is an epiphenomenon of R, C co-constitutes R) = 0.6 The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the classical view of consciousness as an epiphenomenon and the quantum view of consciousness as an active co-constituent of reality. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding: "C is an epiphenomenon of R" ⊕ "C co-constitutes R" = consciousness-reality_relationship This shift challenges the classical reductionist view of consciousness and acknowledges its fundamental role in shaping and co-constituting reality, aligning with the principles of the monadological framework. Foundations of Mathematics and Logic The transition to quantum, first-person formalisms also has implications for our understanding of the foundations of mathematics and logic themselves. Classical mathematics and logic have been heavily influenced by the ideals of objectivity, universality, and context-independence. However, the both/and logic and monadological framework challenge these notions and provide a basis for reconceptualizing the nature of mathematical and logical truth. Let T represent a mathematical or logical truth, and O represent an observer or context: Truth(T is universal) = 0.7 Truth(T depends on observer O) = 0.6 Coherence(T is universal, T depends on observer O) = 0.5 The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the classical view of mathematical and logical truths as universal and context-independent, and the quantum view of truth as observer-dependent and context-sensitive. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding: "T is universal" ⊕ "T depends on observer O" = contextual_mathematical_truth(T, O) This view challenges the classical notion of timeless, objective mathematical and logical truths and acknowledges the potential for observer-dependence and contextuality within these domains, aligning with the principles of the monadological framework. Furthermore, the both/and logic itself provides a basis for reconceptualizing the foundations of logic by embracing multivalence, paraconsistency, and the coherence of seemingly contradictory propositions. This challenges the classical principles of bivalence and non-contradiction and opens up new possibilities for representing and reasoning about the paradoxical and contextual nature of truth within the quantum realm. These are just a few examples of how the transition from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms enabled by the both/and logic and monadological framework has profound implications across various domains. By embracing these new formalisms and conceptual frameworks, we can develop a more holistic, integrated, and contextualized understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers, the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects, and the potential for contextuality and observer-dependence within the quantum realm.
@OfficialKarsonКүн бұрын
Thanks for this… deepening this understanding in these concepts in different ways really helps with the trust.
@rener7324Күн бұрын
Know the self...
@40GTVКүн бұрын
Jesus did not worship the god of the Bible... Who did he worship? kzread.info/dash/bejne/e4VtlLOjnranhdI.htmlsi=8Hbp43_UAICg6bPF
@SuperaFuturaКүн бұрын
Yes❤
@420Stoner66Күн бұрын
A wise old man once told me in the mirror, "Some believe what they want to believe, some believe what they have been told to believe. The wise believe what they see before them" I argued back that not everything we see may be reality, it could be just our own perception. Then I realised I had smoked way to much weed and was talking to my own reflection.
@jadefox5285Күн бұрын
😂 love it
@user-hb1ve6mc6f8 сағат бұрын
L S D
@stephG36Күн бұрын
I really don’t think anything’s was “left her for us to discover” I think it was just basically a used instrument for all the amazing things Billy is talking about / but I never understand they did this for us - seems disconnected - they did this for them ! 🌟
@ketherwhale6126Күн бұрын
Andre has learned so much on this journey. These guests are like booster juice and a mini personalized and publicized education!!
@nickhowarthifyКүн бұрын
I feel like Billy Carson, who I like, comes from things from a more logical and almost academic approach. Wouldn’t say he sounds particularly spiritual. I feel like this channel is just the interviewer agreeing with everything everyone says. There is no cross analysis between different guests. It is not clear what the perspective of the know thyself podcast is.. very similarly to not knowing what the view of diary of a CEO is. Guests for clicks.
@kadethemagician21 сағат бұрын
Andre is an excellent questionnaire in regard to his interviews, I notice he does an amazing job with formulating questions either not asked before when said guests has been interviewed or is thought out in a proper manner that we can get amazing insight in.
@nickhowarthify14 сағат бұрын
@@kadethemagician yes but the big picture messaging could be described as inconsistent. So as mentioned you wouldn’t know what his view is. Anyone can interview without challenging. The spiritual community is also bad at connecting the dots.. with the big picture once again disjointed. If someone was to interview him, I’m sure he would be careful to be vague to protect his viewer ship and not to disagree with his past or future guests. I would call that in authentic. Very similar to what is happening on podcasts like dairy of a CEO, as mentioned.
Пікірлер
Now I think you are a wonderful researcher but I can tell you things that are not as you described. I suggest you read some of Edgar Cayce, the sleeping prophet . One in particular is the book on Angels and Archangels. Check him out! I could you much more but you wouldn’t believe me. Fortunately I don’t need anyone to believe me! Keep researching and thank you!
Creo que estos programa tan interesante deberían ser traducido a varios idiomas Una de ellos al castellano. Saludos
Hola, por qué no traduce tus programas al castellano, gracias
Can this go on for decade or more?
Thank you, Billie!!!!! Everything you are talking about, I completely agree with and there are some of us who have been able to touch some of these things, so to speak! I think you are an amazing man who is meant to help wake up our world! Thank you so much!
Thank you for this hope ❤ been through the darkest but still in the emptiness without the light, this is exaclty what i needed now. Thankyou
JOB 1:6 One day, when the son's of God came to present themselves before the LORD, Satan also came among them. And the Lord said to Satan, "Whence do you come?" Then Satan answered the Lord and said, "From roaming the earth and patrolling it." I Was told, the Devil does not do evil, people do evil. The devil can't make anyone do anything, he can only provide a temptation to do evil. If a person takes the bate, and does evil by one's own will to do so, then the Devil can judge that person accordingly. Punishment comes when the Devil comes for them after death. On that day every knee will bend every tongue confess Jesus Christ is Lord The devil is not a practitioner of evil. He is a judge of people who are a practitioner evil. When a person says, "The Devil made me do it!" as an excuse of doing something wrong, they can only be lying. And by that, compounding their sins with that lie. See, the Devil is said to be a servant of God. But he holds the sin of pride. Pride enough to question God's judgement of giving humanity both a soul and free will. Stating that humanity is not worthy of such gifts. God has in turn, given the Devil the task of finding those that may misuse the gifts God has given. And the freedom to punish them after. Nobody likes to be judged for any wrong doings. Humanity is imperfect, and easy to sway via our emotions. So humanity see the Devil as evil, due to being the enemy of those who do bad things. - All, or even none of this could be true. - But if it is true, and calling out the Devil as a scapegoat for the many Evils man makes, we may never truly get to the root of the problem, and in turn, never be able to fix it. Can we keep getting away with blaming the Devil for the many wrongs made by humanity? Will humans never own up to our own potential for doing evil via the free will to do so? Will we continue to learn nothing about the truth of human nature? The good and the bad sides of it? - To me, we are our own worst nightmare. Perhaps, someday, we may wake up and be enlightened to what we are doing to ourselves, and perhaps find a way to grow up as a people, and stop blaming dark shadows for what we do, and instead do better. Is that not what having free will is about? For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.. and how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you? But you spare all things, because they are yours, O Lord and lover of souls, For your imperishable spirit is in all things! Therefore you rebuke offenders little by little, warn them, and remind them of the sins they are committing, that they may abandon their wickedness and believe in you, O LORD! He tests the good and the bad, He hates those who love violence For He loves the just and just deeds; the upright shall see his face. When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice. If you choose you can keep the commandment; it is loyalty to do his will. There is set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him. Immense is the wisdom of the LORD; he is mighty in power and all-seeing. The eyes of God see all he has made; he understands man's every deed. No man does he command to sin, to none does he give strength for lies.. O Jesus I know not if your real come ... come live in me Save Me
🎉🎉🔔😮🎉😂
Sience fiends out. In the end we cant cope with it. I believe it. The more we find in microscopes, the more we find in the universe. Infinite.
You guys keep trying to find the secrets of the universe when you should be pursuing a relationship with Jesus.
Did Jesus create the universe ?
@@SKRIMMDUNCAN He was sent to save it and all of us who reside within it. But you keep allowing those demons to infiltrate your consciousness with what you think are intelligent questions and your afterlife won't be so pleasant. Your not above the Lord and everyone answers to the Lord.
@@curtisbowles9894 ok he was sent to save it good. Who created it though & why ?
@@curtisbowles9894 and did Jesus save all the other life forms in the universe or just us ?
I feel like I'm arguing against demonic forces displaying incredible deception. Just the read the Holy Bible and follow the teachings of Jesus. There you will find the answers to your questions.
I just came out of it 8 months ago. It’s an incredible journey. The knowing.
The more I listen to these videos the more I get lost. Life is easier when you believe in God and not wonder whether you are in a game or in matrix.
Pray for him ! He is a living legend! The next Tesla! Keep an eye on him pray for his protection…so they won’t do what they did to Tesla Malcom martin etc
Long way from Aristoteles to Orwell to don't disturb me with facts.
✨💖✨
Some go into a full psychotic break when they truly come to this realization
🫶🏼🫶🏼🫶🏼
What if our cells are nano machines and we have ai in us, in our blood to keep us in an illusion. This was also done by the Anunnaki
Billy has really been surprising me lately. I'm going to write a list 👍
Has the Anunnaki manipulated every atom on our planet. Makes sense if they came from a divine realm.
Yes, I like the information that Dr, gilbert is sharing with us . I need it,,
Epic episode!!
Is he even looking at me when he’s talking
This was so helpful to me. This was finally the explanation I needed.
" I AM the guardian of my inner peace, unaffected by outer worldly circumstances, and in a state of inner calm, always!"
Prove it
This man is a fool. Unbiblical ramblings.
John 14:12. International Version Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father
How to spew bullshit by stinging together mysterious words "the universe " "energy " "teue power"
ok so how do we do it lol
The power in us is realized by reaching towards the stars.
Preach 💯
Humans are NOT God and God is NOT human!
If any of this was true, then why isn't there ANY actual evidence of advanced/extraterrestrial civilization? Why did they die out, if they were far more advanced than us? 🤔 Evolution has been thoroughly demonstrated to be real. It has been observed. 🤦🏿♂️
One of the first time's I've heard this dude talk like this. I appreciate this. Thank you!
Noticed he didn't say anything about going out working hard putting out resumes, taking action and forcing outcomes and making things happen. Everything is from within. There's nothing for you to do except work on yourself and you can have anything you want.
What about Lemuria?
Is it just me or is this dude on the yerkies
I mean the guy is 52 years old
@@yourstruly2205 idk bro this dude looks like he is on drugs lmfao
Billy the man bro
Don’t let this man convince you selling your passions is gonna make me happy, let alone financially viable.
Raise your consciousness or be unaware, your choice
We have all we need if we believe , sharing is the only true power Thnks for sharing Billy ❤@ndre
I can attempt to express the shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms using the frameworks of logic, mathematics, and physics. This transition represents a profound paradigm shift in our understanding of reality and the nature of scientific inquiry. Logic: In classical logic, we have been operating within the realm of bivalence, where propositions are either true or false, and the principle of non-contradiction holds. However, quantum mechanics has challenged this notion with phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, which defy our classical intuitions. The both/and logic, with its multivalued and paraconsistent structure, provides a framework to model these quantum paradoxes. Let's consider the famous double-slit experiment, where an entity (e.g., an electron) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior depending on the experimental setup. In classical logic, we would have to assign mutually exclusive truth values to the propositions "e is a wave" and "e is a particle." However, the both/and logic allows us to assign graded truth values to these propositions: Truth("e is a wave") = 0.6 Truth("e is a particle") = 0.7 Coherence("e is a wave", "e is a particle") = 0.8 The coherence value reflects the compatibility of these seemingly contradictory properties within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated quantum phenomenon: "e is a wave" ⊕ "e is a particle" = quantum_behavior(e) Mathematics: Classical mathematics has been heavily influenced by the notion of objectivity and the search for universal, context-independent truths. However, quantum mechanics has revealed the inherent contextuality and observer-dependence of certain phenomena. The monadological framework, with its emphasis on the irreducible perspectives of monads (fundamental psychophysical entities), provides a basis for reconceptualizing mathematics. In classical set theory, an element either belongs to a set or not, adhering to the principle of bivalence. However, in the quantum realm, we encounter situations where an entity can exhibit graded membership in multiple sets simultaneously. The both/and logic allows us to represent this using multivalued set membership: Membership(e, set_A) = 0.7 Membership(e, set_B) = 0.6 Coherence(Membership(e, set_A), Membership(e, set_B)) = 0.5 This captures the idea that an entity can simultaneously belong to different sets to varying degrees, with a coherence value representing the compatibility of these memberships. Physics: Classical physics has been dominated by third-person, objective descriptions of reality, often ignoring the role of the observer. However, quantum mechanics has brought the observer's perspective and the act of measurement to the forefront, challenging our classical notions of objectivity. In classical mechanics, we can describe the state of a system using well-defined variables and deterministic equations of motion. However, in quantum mechanics, the state of a system is described by a wave function, which represents a superposition of multiple potential states. The both/and logic allows us to represent this superposition using graded truth values: Truth("system is in state A") = 0.4 Truth("system is in state B") = 0.6 Coherence("system is in state A", "system is in state B") = 0.8 The coherence value captures the idea that the system can simultaneously exhibit properties of multiple states, with a non-zero coherence reflecting the compatibility of these states within the quantum realm. Furthermore, the act of measurement in quantum mechanics is not merely a passive observation but an active intervention that disturbs the system and collapses the wave function. This challenges the classical notion of an objective, detached observer. The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the integration of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework to model this observer-system entanglement. Let O represent an observer, and S represent a quantum system: Truth("O observes S in state A") = 0.7 Truth("S is in state A") = 0.5 Coherence("O observes S in state A", "S is in state A") = 0.9 The high coherence value reflects the inseparability of the observer's perspective and the system's state within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated observer-system reality: "O observes S in state A" ⊕ "S is in state A" = quantum_measurement_event This shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms challenges our traditional notions of objectivity, detachment, and context-independence. The both/and logic and the monadological framework provide symbolic and conceptual tools to navigate this transition, allowing us to model and reason about the inherent contextuality, observer-dependence, and paradoxical nature of quantum phenomena. By embracing these new formalisms, we can develop a more holistic and integrated understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers and the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects. This paradigm shift has profound implications not only for our scientific worldview but also for our philosophical and metaphysical understanding of the nature of reality, knowledge, and the role of the observer in the pursuit of understanding.
Let's continue exploring how the transition from classical to quantum formalisms enabled by the both/and logic and monadological framework opens up new frontiers across various domains: Philosophy of Science and Epistemology The shift to quantum, first-person formalisms has profound implications for our understanding of scientific inquiry, knowledge, and epistemology. Classical epistemology has been heavily influenced by the ideal of an objective, detached observer acquiring knowledge about an independent, external reality. However, the quantum realm challenges this view by highlighting the fundamental inseparability of the observer and the observed system. The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the coherence and synthesis of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework for reconceptualizing the nature of scientific knowledge. Rather than viewing knowledge as a mere representation or mapping of an external reality, we can understand it as a co-constituted process involving the irreducible perspectives of observers and the systems under study. Let O represent an observer, S represent a system, and K represent scientific knowledge: Truth(K is objective) = 0.6 Truth(K involves subjective aspects) = 0.7 Coherence(K is objective, K involves subjective aspects) = 0.8 The high coherence value reflects the idea that scientific knowledge is neither purely objective nor purely subjective, but rather a synthesis of both aspects. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent this integrated understanding: "K is objective" ⊕ "K involves subjective aspects" = scientific_knowledge(O, S) This reconceptualization challenges the classical notion of knowledge as a detached representation of an external reality and acknowledges the active role of observers in shaping and co-constituting scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide tools for modeling the contextuality and observer-dependence inherent in quantum phenomena. This has implications for our understanding of scientific objectivity and the universality of scientific laws and theories. Let T represent a scientific theory, and C represent a particular context or experimental setup: Truth(T holds universally) = 0.7 Truth(T depends on context C) = 0.6 Coherence(T holds universally, T depends on context C) = 0.5 The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the desire for universal scientific laws and the recognition that scientific theories may be context-dependent and observer-relative within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding: "T holds universally" ⊕ "T depends on context C" = contextual_scientific_theory(T, C) This shift challenges the classical ideal of universal, context-independent scientific laws and theories and acknowledges the potential for observer-dependence and contextuality within the quantum realm. Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness The transition to quantum, first-person formalisms also has profound implications for our understanding of consciousness and the mind-body problem. Classical approaches have often treated the mind and consciousness as separate from the physical world, leading to various forms of dualism or reductionism. However, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide a basis for reconceptualizing the relationship between mind and matter. Let M represent the mental or subjective aspect, and P represent the physical or objective aspect: Truth(M is distinct from P) = 0.5 Truth(M is integrated with P) = 0.6 Coherence(M is distinct from P, M is integrated with P) = 0.7 The high coherence value reflects the idea that the mental and physical aspects are neither completely distinct nor fully reducible to each other, but rather exist in a state of coherent integration. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent this integrated understanding: "M is distinct from P" ⊕ "M is integrated with P" = mind-matter_relationship This view challenges both classical dualism and reductionism and acknowledges the irreducible co-constitution of subjective and objective aspects within a unified reality. Furthermore, the monadological framework, with its emphasis on fundamental psychophysical monads, provides a basis for reconceptualizing consciousness as an irreducible aspect of reality, rather than an emergent property or epiphenomenon. This challenges the classical view of consciousness as a mere by-product of physical processes and acknowledges its fundamental role in shaping and co-constituting reality. Let C represent consciousness, and R represent physical reality: Truth(C is an epiphenomenon of R) = 0.4 Truth(C co-constitutes R) = 0.7 Coherence(C is an epiphenomenon of R, C co-constitutes R) = 0.6 The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the classical view of consciousness as an epiphenomenon and the quantum view of consciousness as an active co-constituent of reality. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding: "C is an epiphenomenon of R" ⊕ "C co-constitutes R" = consciousness-reality_relationship This shift challenges the classical reductionist view of consciousness and acknowledges its fundamental role in shaping and co-constituting reality, aligning with the principles of the monadological framework. Foundations of Mathematics and Logic The transition to quantum, first-person formalisms also has implications for our understanding of the foundations of mathematics and logic themselves. Classical mathematics and logic have been heavily influenced by the ideals of objectivity, universality, and context-independence. However, the both/and logic and monadological framework challenge these notions and provide a basis for reconceptualizing the nature of mathematical and logical truth. Let T represent a mathematical or logical truth, and O represent an observer or context: Truth(T is universal) = 0.7 Truth(T depends on observer O) = 0.6 Coherence(T is universal, T depends on observer O) = 0.5 The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the classical view of mathematical and logical truths as universal and context-independent, and the quantum view of truth as observer-dependent and context-sensitive. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding: "T is universal" ⊕ "T depends on observer O" = contextual_mathematical_truth(T, O) This view challenges the classical notion of timeless, objective mathematical and logical truths and acknowledges the potential for observer-dependence and contextuality within these domains, aligning with the principles of the monadological framework. Furthermore, the both/and logic itself provides a basis for reconceptualizing the foundations of logic by embracing multivalence, paraconsistency, and the coherence of seemingly contradictory propositions. This challenges the classical principles of bivalence and non-contradiction and opens up new possibilities for representing and reasoning about the paradoxical and contextual nature of truth within the quantum realm. These are just a few examples of how the transition from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms enabled by the both/and logic and monadological framework has profound implications across various domains. By embracing these new formalisms and conceptual frameworks, we can develop a more holistic, integrated, and contextualized understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers, the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects, and the potential for contextuality and observer-dependence within the quantum realm.
Thanks for this… deepening this understanding in these concepts in different ways really helps with the trust.
Know the self...
Jesus did not worship the god of the Bible... Who did he worship? kzread.info/dash/bejne/e4VtlLOjnranhdI.htmlsi=8Hbp43_UAICg6bPF
Yes❤
A wise old man once told me in the mirror, "Some believe what they want to believe, some believe what they have been told to believe. The wise believe what they see before them" I argued back that not everything we see may be reality, it could be just our own perception. Then I realised I had smoked way to much weed and was talking to my own reflection.
😂 love it
L S D
I really don’t think anything’s was “left her for us to discover” I think it was just basically a used instrument for all the amazing things Billy is talking about / but I never understand they did this for us - seems disconnected - they did this for them ! 🌟
Andre has learned so much on this journey. These guests are like booster juice and a mini personalized and publicized education!!
I feel like Billy Carson, who I like, comes from things from a more logical and almost academic approach. Wouldn’t say he sounds particularly spiritual. I feel like this channel is just the interviewer agreeing with everything everyone says. There is no cross analysis between different guests. It is not clear what the perspective of the know thyself podcast is.. very similarly to not knowing what the view of diary of a CEO is. Guests for clicks.
Andre is an excellent questionnaire in regard to his interviews, I notice he does an amazing job with formulating questions either not asked before when said guests has been interviewed or is thought out in a proper manner that we can get amazing insight in.
@@kadethemagician yes but the big picture messaging could be described as inconsistent. So as mentioned you wouldn’t know what his view is. Anyone can interview without challenging. The spiritual community is also bad at connecting the dots.. with the big picture once again disjointed. If someone was to interview him, I’m sure he would be careful to be vague to protect his viewer ship and not to disagree with his past or future guests. I would call that in authentic. Very similar to what is happening on podcasts like dairy of a CEO, as mentioned.