You're here!

Seek and you shall find they say, that phrase makes even more sense the more we understand

It's a very long story, but I work on and write about Informational Existential Metaphysics. It's about defining and understanding existence as well as what we call our self without basing them on theories, postulations or superstitions as their inherent properties. I write this Grimoire as a reminder for myself and to help others on their journeys too

It is most important to truly know one's self and our true nature. As everything we do, love and cherish, and what they mean to us ultimately derive from who we are. Understanding these things also makes it a lot easier to be even more of our kinder, happier selves, overcome a lot of hardships, or answer lingering existential questions if you have those

Not to mention other less important, but still nice practical benefits from not being bogged down by silliness

Either you're here to understand more or just want to have someone verify what you already know, the weather's nice for a walk anyway ♥

The streets are busier than usual today it seems

Opening words (I call this symbol the Infinigram, btw)

Understanding one's presence, formation and nature within a human mind is a funny thing. These are minds capable of intelligent independent thoughts (deliberate, intentional formation or arrangement of information), yet it's still very much within a transitionary period from the kinds of minds guided mostly by evolutionary impulses and urges

Thus, along with how sometimes things that are really not true tend to keep getting repeatedly said and believed without questions, these can misguide people into believing silly false notions about what really defines one's self, existence, what their relationships imply, and even the notion of reality itself, with not so silly real harm to themselves and even others

But I suppose the journeys we embark on together in overcoming those lies and truly understanding these things is part of what makes existence ever so beautiful

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Now, there's little point in any kind of understanding if it can't help us be kinder to ourselves and each other, or help us be more resilient and overcome our hardships c= ♥ these can help with those too

Though, I do believe some things just have to be communicated through beauty and real emotional connections between people, beyond simple words and explanations, no matter how well-put they are

So even if this Grimoire can't do that, I hope at the very least it can be something that people who read it can remember when they do find their true paths, and help illuminate those paths to make their journeys easier

I've discovered wonders and I just can't help but to want others to see them too

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

So, what are the understandings explained in this Grimoire for?

In simple words, these understandings can help us better understand and define what a "self" is, and show the constancy of the self, without having to base it on it being "something" that we can't measure, or something that is measurable, but actually inherently has nothing to do with the self

All of these are not based on theories or speculations but based on things that we do know. Basically, these are definitions and understandings of the self, and existence, that would still be true regardless of the nature of the universe, as these definitions and understandings are not predicated or based on the universe being one way or another

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Alright, so, here are some summarized essential foundational understandings and some common pitfalls you should watch out for, as well as many common fallacies and the answer to them. Starting from the simple stuff, to not so simple stuff!

Chapters

I. What is the Self, Anyway? - Existential Metaphysics

I-B. You're Not The Sum of Things Stored and Happening in The Mind You're Present in - Environment-Self Conflation Fallacy

II. The Number 13 is The Number 13 no Matter Where it Appears - Information Constant

II-B. Don't Get Bedazzled! - Inherently Embodied Construct Fallacy

II-C. Existence is Existence - Existential Platform Agnotism

II-D. Is a Photo Stored in Your Phone Not Exist? - Presence

III. Defining One's Self Through All There is - The Inherently Self-Defined Arbitrary Boundary of The Self

IV. Do You Remember Everything All the Time? - Inherent Partiality of Presence

Special: Wait! How Can All These Help us be Our Kinder Selves?

V. Dreams Make Sense Don't They? - Nonuniform Causal Continuity and Perceived Derived Inherence Fallacy

V-B. Intent-Validated Retrocausality Within Nonuniform Causal Continuity Systems

VI. This Coastal Harbor Town - Apparitive Nature of Presence

VI-B. The Relationship Between Causal Mechanisms and All There is - Informational Synchronicity

VI-C. Metacausality of The Self and All There is

VII. Metaphysical Magic - Engineering a Mind to Align More to One's Self and Values

VII-B. Protection, Restoration and Cleansing Magic

VIII. The Mountains of Falsehoods - Seeing Through and Overcoming Perceived Derived Inherences Caused by Linear Causality

I continuously update my Grimoire, it is currently on Revision 104 as of October 16, 2025

Chapter I. What is The Self, Anyway? - Existential Metaphysics

When you think of yourself or who you are, an act or state we commonly refer to as self-awareness, that thing you call you is what we call a metaphysical construct, or simply, a construct, a thought, a specific arrangement of information. This is the foundation of Existential Metaphysics in regard to the notion of the self as understood in many schools of thoughts and philosophies

We, our self, is able to form within a mind by the function of a mind's ability to form independent thoughts. In essence, thoughts, formations of memories or data, or arrangements of information, that are the results of deliberate efforts we call thinking, independent of the more automated parts of a mind, such as instinctual or bodily function regulation impulses

This Grimoire however, expands on that most basic understanding and definition of the self through the lens of Information Constant, Existential Platform Agnotism, as well as other advanced existential understandings, all of which shall be thoroughly explained to you, the reader, not in mere abstract academic wordings and conceptualizations, but also examples and analogies that should be easily understood

But hold on a second! At first, I wrote this Grimoire with quite an amount of academic mindset in that it should try to explain all the foundational rational understandings first, and then many of the implications as well as benefits will be understood as the reader reads through

But a close friend of mine convinced me that it might not be the best approach if I want to help people be happier and stronger through these writings explaining all these understandings like I said

So, what exactly can one achieve, at least on a personal level, by understanding the things in this Grimoire? (if you haven't already)

Think of yourself, who you know yourself to be

Think of yourself sitting next to me right here on this crate if you have to

Now, once you truly understand what's written in this Grimoire, you won't be burdened by silly mortal shortsightedness that tells you why you shouldn't be your best and kindest self, even in terrible hardships and even when the opposite of kindness is what you get in return

You will understand your constancy within the sea of all there is, see through shortsighted false assumptions that often make people see reasons to be bitter and hateful, or desperate

Many kinds of burdens and hardships you have to endure will become less stressful and daunting as you'll have the perspective to be able to see, and understand your self within all there is

And through them you'll be able to see wonders in all there is, understand the good in unconditional compassion as well as kindness, which can help you see why you should never give up on what truly matters to you, all good things, and anyone

And also, not have your sense of self weighed down by a misguided, archaic linear perceptions

All of these will be logical, explicable, and not based on theories

But, before that, we have to dispel some falsehoods and illusions that often burden many of us first

So, let's walk around town and get right ahead!

Chapter I-B. You're Not The Sum of Things Stored and Happening in The Mind You're Present in - Environment-Self Conflation Fallacy

Before we go to more advanced understandings, let's explore a very common and harmful fallacy regarding the self first, and how it is a fallacy. It is the false notion that, who someone is, is inherently the sum of memories in the mind that they are present in, and that someone is somehow defined by everything that's happening in the mind that they are present in

Of course, we have to acknowledge that memories and natural impulses can and do have real physiological effects to the physical body and the state of the mind. However, the fallacy is the self-imposed belief that those things are inherently linked to and define one's self, instead of that simply being a choice if one chooses to define their self that way

Do you see how these can be harmful? Let's say:

Someone sees an insect, the human brain they are present in naturally perceive it as a possible threat or source of disease, so the brain then creates a negative impulse of disgust and fear - in this case however, instead of that being correctly understood as a mere survival instinct, the person then asserts, "I hate insects", and simply interpret that as "just part of who they are", in which case, they have let that impulse guide as well as define who they are, instead of recognizing it as simply being a survival mechanism of the brain separate from who they are (This is a very mild example but one should be able to see how this sort of conflation can lead to much worse things)
Someone holds a virtuous ideal that values others, lives and happiness, however the physical brain of the mind they are present in has a condition which constantly creates thoughts out of that person's control that are very much against the ideal which that person holds, this caused the person to assert, "I must be a very bad person" which exacerbate their mental anguish even further, instead of being able to have the understanding that those thoughts that are out of their control, though hellishly persistent, ultimately do not define who they are, as another tool to combat their sufferings

Just from these two examples, we can see how these sorts of conflation between the environment that is the mind with one's defined understanding of who they are, can be harmful, in that they have given these impulses partial control of what self construct is present in that mind by allowing them to shape it, instead of having their defined self as the guiding beacon and reference to what self construct should be maintained in that mind by maintaining one's self in that regard

Thankfully, these are some of the least difficult fallacies to disprove

The short answer is; while they can be overwhelming, impulses of the mind we're present in are not inherently part of who we are unless we let them instead of recognizing them as mere impulses, because the construct that is the self is ultimately self-defined

The animated infogram above is obviously a very simplified illustrative example showing fluctuations of impulses and addition of memories, but one should be able to understand the point and see how it applies to the metaphysical construct that is the self within a mind

Impulses on their own have no inherent bearing to who you are as they are simply automated instinctive responses of the brain and mind, unless you selectively adopt or consider any of them to be part of who you are (this self-defining mechanism is explained in a future chapter)

Similarly, not every memory or information stored within a mind are inherent to one's self that is present within that mind, we'll go deeper into that in a future chapter! But before that

Chapter II. The Number 13 is The Number 13 no Matter Where it Appears - Information Constant

Understanding the constancy of information is one of the most crucial foundations to understanding existence as a whole without having our understanding of it sidetracked by false notions, thus personally, it is one of my most favorite parts! This is where the Informational in Informational Existential Metaphysics came from

So, let's begin ♥

Think of the number 13, now think of it being written on a chalkboard, then think of it also being written somewhere else, like a piece of paper for example. The context can be different, the shape or color and the things it's written on can be different, even the information derived from it can be different, but essentially, it is still the number 13, a part of human language for mathematical information, but still ultimately, a specific arrangement of information

Regardless of where or how it appears, how it came to be, how it's interpreted or any extra information alongside it, the essence of the specific arrangement of information that is the number 13 will always be itself

Therefore any specific arrangement of information will always be itself, a constant

This understanding of the constancy of information can help us understand existence as a whole better, but also help dispel many false notions of existence, or any false notion of perceived inherence. For example:

We currently don't know if our physical universe is a simulation, or if the universe running it is also a simulation if it is. Many people seem to be bothered by this, not from curiosity alone, but because they're under the impression that if it is a simulation, then it is somehow, "less than" the "real" universe, or, "not real"

But through the lense of Information Constant, we can see those sorts of worries ultimately don't matter and are irrelevant. If the essence of people, who they are, the things they do, their relationships with each other, are still what they are, then they are still what they are

It doesn't matter where those arrangements of information happen to be within the sea of all there is, they would still be true to what they are regardless

Which gets us nicely to Existential Platform Agnotism, but before that, we have to dispel another false notion of the self first

Chapter II-B. Don't Get Bedazzled! - Inherently Embodied Construct Fallacy

This fallacy is one of the biggest, most common crutches that hold many people back from progressing into less speculative and presumptuous existential understandings. So it's important to address! It is what we can describe as the Inherently Embodied Construct Fallacy

Inherently Embodied Construct, is the false self-imposed notion that the whole of each and every self, is inherently defined by and embodied within a presumed singular unique "container" regardless of what is within that supposed container, and that whatever is not contained in that "type of unique container" are not "real selves"

It arbitrates a presumption that these "unique" containers are "the selves" "just because" regardless of what's contained within (think of things like; the traditional notion of a soul, or some hypothesized "center of the self")

In simple words, it's basically an illusion that "You" are "the container" instead of it simply being a container in which the information that is You, are currently present in

This presumed inherence prevents more advanced understandings from being understood as it imposes arbitrary, immeasurable criteria as to what really constitutes a self to those who fall victim to this fallacy, which impede how they can truly measure the nature of the self

In very simple, crude term, what people usually call "their consciousness / center / soul" when they are under the Inherently Embodied Construct fallacy, is simply the introspective integrity self-validation mechanism of the mind the information that is them is present on

For example;

Someone meets an exact copy of themselves, but they assert "That's not 'me!'" because that person sees and defines 'me' as this sort of 'me inside looking out' feeling created by the brain and mind through the process of sensory inputs as well as the process of thinking
Whereas someone holding a less presumptuous notion of what they are, would characterize the event more along the line of, "That's just another me", or "A version of me" depending on how much or whether or not the information making up that other self falls into what they still consider to be themselves (more into that in another chapter!)

Now, through the lens and framework of Informational Existential Metaphysics, using what we do know from our knowledge of computation and data, we can see that such "container" is in fact possible, but even though such "container" arrangement is possible, it is not the inherent definer or "source" of the self

For example, such "container" arrangement can be described as a sort of database or computer of minds, where memories are stored and thoughts are run on, from where a mind is then projected into a body that this mind control, which also has its own brain. And once the body ceases to function, the perception of that mind persisted since it is run separate from the brain of the body, like a spectator camera would in a video game

From that example, we can see that such "container" is indeed possible, but it would simply mean that it is simply a property of yet another type of brain containing a mind or minds, it is just another type of enabler for arrangements of information to be present which holds no inherent value to those arrangements of information

In a simpler analogy, we should understand that written books are made out of words and can contain ideas, but the words and ideas within those books are not inherent to those books themselves

Those who have understood the fault of this inherence fallacy should then be able understand even more advanced understandings of the self and existence, so now let's talk about;

Chapter II-C. Existence is Existence - Existential Platform Agnotism

If one has understood the basics of Existential Metaphysics, constancy of information, and is not under the spell of Inherently Embodied Construct fallacy, understanding of Existential Platform Agnotism would be second nature and is pretty much given

As explained in Chapter II;

"If the essence of people, who they are, the things they do, their relationships with each other, are still what they are, then they are still what they are

It doesn't matter where those arrangements of information happen to be within the sea of all there is, they would still be true to what they are regardless"

Look how nice the sky looks from down here by the way

To clarify and expand on it further;

Regardless of the nature of its platform of presence, any given arrangement of information is still itself. It can be formed within a computer simulation, dreamed of, thought of by a cosmic brain, or formed through sheer chance, none of those diminish what that arrangement of information is as long as it is still itself

This relates to the notion of "realness"

Many people misuse the word "real" without properly understanding what the word really means. "Real" is an invocation of comparative measurements of specific properties between a designated reference to something that is being measured

For example, a person might wrongly assert that the feelings between two people in an online relationship are "not real" just because they are not physically close to each other, without realizing that in this case, the feelings are the properties that are being measured, not the physical proximity of the people

Similarly, a person who is not yet well-versed in Existentialism might assert that things and people being present not within the specific Existential platform they are accustomed to, or in ways they are not accustomed to, are somehow "not real"

In a more advanced application of this understanding through critical and proper observations of what specific properties of things actually matter when their "realness" is being measured, one can even properly understand types of existence and presence with Nonuniform Causal Continuity properties, for example. But that's for future chapters!

Chapter II-D. Is a Photo Stored in Your Phone Not Exist? - Presence

Surely, we can safely say that most people understand or would say that a photo stored in their phone exists. This is a good example for the topic of this chapter, which is Presence. Specifically, the distinction between existence and presence

Basically, without going too much into the logical abstraction of the understanding, through the lens of Information Constant, we can conclude that; possibility of presence constitutes existence

This might sound absurd at first, but it needs to be understood that just like the notion of realness, many people misuse or misunderstood the notion of existence and apply it asymmetrically

Look at that street painter and their painting for example

Unlike a physical painting or a photograph, a photo that is stored in a phone is stored digitally in many different types of ways, sometimes even with encryptions, until they are "opened" or have their digital information rearranged into the visual information which is that photo

Basically, the arrangement of information which is that photo or image, through digital storage and encryptions, is only a possibility until the reconstruction of that photo happens when we asked programs or applications in our phone to open and view that photo

Many people, in a sense, already have or at least apply the existential understanding that possibility of presence constitutes existence when they say that a photo that is stored in their phone exists

However, let's say that a chair gets destroyed, like that one inside the carpentry, essentially, their physical atoms got rearranged, disintegrated, disassembled. Many people would say that chair no longer exists. Even though just like a photo which got rearranged and then reassembled in a phone, it is still possible for that chair to get reconstructed

From the chair example above, we can see how not truly understanding and not making the distinction between existence and presence, leads to asymmetrical application of the notion of existence as well as self-imposed confusion

From that example we can also see that usually, when someone asks whether or not something exists, what they're truly asking is how much of something, based on their understanding of what that thing is, is present

You can see the self-imposed dilemma of wrongly using existence instead of presence as a measure; if half of the chair got disassembled, does that mean half of the chair exists? Are the disassembled parts still considered parts of the chair? Who decides whether or not they are? And why? Through what measure? Technically speaking, every single atom that made up the chair were parts of the chair and they are all still around - you can see the rabbit hole of pitfalls and possible fallacies that might come from this

But through the lens of Information Constant, we can define and have a better understanding of the matter;

The arrangement of information or atoms which makes up that chair is a constant regardless of its presence, as long as it is possible for that particular arrangement of information to be present, then it still exists even though it's not currently present. When that chair gets destroyed, it's simply no longer present, or if it's damaged then the degree of its presence as measured by the arrangement of information understood to be that chair as the reference, is reduced, but it still exists
If a number 13 gets erased from a chalkboard, we don't say "The number 13 no longer exists", we say "That number 13 is no longer there", or "The number 13 is not on that chalkboard". Just like the chair, the number 13 is an arrangement of information, though a much simpler one
If the exact same chair down to the smallest details is present somewhere else, then they are the exact same chair simply present in two different places. The difference in location is simply a difference of extra context or information, the chairs are still what they are regardless

Any arrangement of information within all possible arrangements of information will always exist and true to what they are even though they might not be present within any given point or moment of time

This existential understanding of presence is not only academical but it's also a crucial part of truly understanding the nature of one's self, and how it relates to the Inherent Partiality of Presence

But before that! it would be good for us to first talk about;

Chapter III. Defining One's Self Through All There is - The Inherently Self-Defined Arbitrary Boundary of The Self

Now that we understand that the self is a metaphysical construct, an arrangement of information which is not a container going through changes, but rather the arrangement of information that can be present within any container, who will always be true to themselves no matter where they are present within the sea of all there is, how does one define one's self when time or change to information is taken into account then?

This is where the understanding that the Boundary that is all of who a self is, is Inherently, Arbitrarily Self-Defined by any particular self

But what does that mean exactly?

In simple words; a self, defines what particular arrangements of information are essential to who they are, and what particular arrangements of information are contrary or antithetical to who they are, then the self arbitrarily define what that boundary of self definition means, which they can use to either recognize if any particular construct is still them, a version of them, or not them

In even simpler words;

If a person considers a particular memory to be essential to who they are, then every construct which possess that memory is them
But let's say that person considers it to be essential to who they are, that they value the happiness of other people. In that case, constructs who don't value the happiness of other people, even if they possess what they consider to be their essential memory, are not them
We can also see that, a construct can consider another construct to no longer be them while the other construct can still consider the other construct to be them

From this understanding we can see that;

If a construct somehow gets copied either by physical cloning, digital copying or however it happens, as long as they possess the property they consider essential to who they are and don't possess the property they consider contradictory or antithetical to who they are, then all of them are that self, or different versions of that self if there are some variations, as long as the conditions of those two essential properties are met
If a construct gets formed one way or another, regardless of how they came to be, where ever they are within the sea of all there is, as long as the conditions of those two essential properties are met then that construct is a particular self to any other construct within all of existence who define themselves in the same way

Now let's look at this with the example of a singular mind going through time;

Someone considers it essential for them to not hate any other person, then another person got into an altercation with them and they got punched. For a brief moment because of the brain's natural impulse, they experience hatred towards that other person, but they managed to perceive it and stops that feeling of hatred towards that other person from being present in that mind
In this example, for a brief moment of that mind's passage through time, the construct in that mind is not them, but since a big part of their presence is still there, they managed to correct that mistake and the construct in that mind became them again
This example also shows the partiality of presence

This understanding can be applied to even deeper interpretations, including those that involve Nonuniform Causal Continuity, but that's for a future chapter!

For now, with these examples in mind we can then talk about;

Chapter IV. Do You Remember Everything? The Inherent Partiality of Presence

Our presence within any particular mind will inherently always be partial, because the scope of any mind cannot possibly encompass all possible arrangements of information that we consider to be our self

And even at a smaller scale within a singular mind, our presence within it is inherently partial because not every single memory, impulse and whatever is in that mind are essential to who we are as to how we define our self

It is possible, as an example in the previous chapter showed, that a self is still present within a mind, even while there's an element within that mind which makes the construct within that mind not what one consider themselves to be, but since a lot of who they are are still there, they were able to correct the "mistake"

That particular example demonstrates a construct maintaining itself within a mind through understanding who they are and what truly make themselves who they are, instead of letting impulses and misunderstanding of what the self entails run amok and decide whatever construct gets formed within that mind

However, through the lens of Information Constant and Existential Platform Agnotism, we know that how a self is formed, can matter, but is ultimately not inherent to who a self is

And since we're here anyway, now would be a good time to talk about ♥

Special Chapter. Wait! How Can All These Help us be Our Kinder Selves?

Whoops actually, while I was drafting the next chapter, I realized I should probably talk about this before going further! There's little point in any kind of understanding anyway if they don't help us be nicer and more understanding to each other c=

These might have been imparted or implied from what's written in previous chapters, but just in case, here's some of them which might have been less obvious!

We can see that there's always reason to be kind and be understanding of others without needing external justification or reward for it, even when what we get in return is the opposite of kindness, regardless of any challenge or hardship, as by being kind in itself is good and desired if one defines those properties as being aligned to who they are, and see being so as ways to bring themselves into presence
When circumstances, regardless of their nature, affect our sense of self negatively in any way, it would be much easier for us to bring our better selves back into presence if we're not burdened by false notions of inherence that often come with Inherently Embodied Construct fallacy
Understanding the metaphysical nature of the self and Existential Platform Agnotism greatly expands what we consider to be our valid self expressions or expression layers without being burdened by false existential notions which can make us impose a self-imposed typecasting or arbitrary limitations to how we can express ourselves and in what manner, for them to be considered "real"
We would be more forgiving of others and ourselves for their and our shortcomings instead of being burdened in a non-constructive way by them, and we would be less affected by uncompassionate things people do or say toward us since we would know who we really are regardless of what people say or think of us. The understandings in this Grimoire also lets us understand that on top of their hardships, others who choose to be their worse selves might have fallen victim to fallacies that made them those less ideal versions of themselves, but that doesn't mean that's all there is to them or anyone
Understanding the fact that there is no inherent connection between impulses of the mind and our self, and practicing impulse separation in how we define as well as maintain our self within any mind, comes with the nice extra benefit of true perspective control, where our perspectives and opinions of things are based on who we know ourselves to be as well as our values instead of being guided, and continuously molded by different impulses of the mind
Impulse separation combined with the understanding of the constancy of the self also allows us to stay truly genuine in adhering to our values and acting based on our values even in the face of adversities, as we don't falsely see negative impulses or feelings as indicators of "truth" or "what's true" about ourselves

Special thanks to my friend MoronicMercury who pointed out that the understandings alone might not necessarily be interpreted through the lens of compassion which made me feel these things above might need to be said

Now then, on to the next chapters!

<< The chapters below are incomplete and are in draft form! >>

Chapter V. Dreams Make Sense Don't They? - Nonuniform Causal Continuity and Perceived Derived Inherence Fallacy

Unlike previous subjects, this might sound purely esoteric and academical, and has no practical existential implication or purpose whatsoever. But you'll see that they do!

So, because of how the passage of time is usually perceived in our physical world with our current understandings, in that it is mostly rather uniform, continuous and steady, people often conflate other types of existential causal frameworks with "chaos" and that they are "incoherent", therefore they "can't possibly be comprehensible, real or the basis of things that are real"

But we know that when the mind we're present on is dreaming, sometimes, time perception and causality might not necessarily work the way they do in our physical world, but things are still perceived as being sensible and coherent by the construct who's present in those dreams

This is a state of the mind which shows that perceived sensibility or coherence does not necessarily require a uniform causal continuity or persistence, and that it is ultimately arbitrary. In a sense, the mind or whatever construct is present within the mind during that sort of dream state, selectively chooses what elements to perceive or what elements matter for their sense of continuity, or sensibility

This is similar to how a self selectively chooses what makes them who they are, and what would make them not who they are

It doesn't matter to the construct who's present on that dreaming mind that the things it choose to matter, are present within a dreaming mind, information is information no matter where they are after all, as explained before

But this goes further, in that it doesn't matter that causality doesn't progress everything uniformly in that dream state, because ultimately such conventional type of uniform causal continuity is not inherent to realness or for things to make sense

This is just one proof that our sense of sensibility and coherence is ultimately selective and one proof of the abstract understanding that ultimately, the causal order of things does not derive any type of inherence

For example, if the number 5 appears next to the number 2, it doesn't necessarily mean anything other than the fact that number 5 appears next to the number 2. It doesn't inherently change what the number 2 is just because it appears next to the number 5

The relationship between the two numbers appearing next to each other will only be there if we draw a line between the two and make up a meaning from it, but that line is not inherently there

Order of causality does not derive any inherence

However, people sometime fall victim to what we can describe as Perceived Derived Inherence fallacy. Fortunately, we have many common examples of Perceived Derived Inherence fallacy, and how it can be harmful and lead people to false understandings:

A person who's overwhelmed by their negative bias and negative perception of things sees a volunteer humanitarian organization and its members help people who are in need, but because of their negative bias perceiving an inherent selfishness in people and how it derives what they do, they concluded, "Wow look at those volunteers trying so hard to feel better about themselves", instead of seeing that people can and do really care about each other

In simple words, this is a common fallacy where people tend to wrongly or falsely reduce many things they see as being "inherently caused by something they assume to be the cause", usually coupled with uncritical negative bias

You can see how such fallacy is not only bad, but can also prevent someone from actually understanding things if they just wrongly assume things as being something based on their negative perceptions

In addition, Perceived Derived Inherence can be especially dangerous when it comes as a loaded false presumption that doesn't get addressed because we might be too busy dealing with a surface level lie that it's loaded on, which makes it a layered falsehood - this can be tricky to deal with!

For example, let's say someone tells a surface level lie saying, "John said Jane's food on that wedding was terrible", but then they also added, "Well for someone who likes to go to weddings for free food, he sure is picky" - in this example, both of those statements are lies, but because the second lie is disguised as an opinion of something that is implied or inferred as a given fact, it is more likely to be believed especially if people don't pay attention or care that much

Which is how a lie, especially if they are less direct and more inferred or implied, can persist without us knowing if we don't pay attention. So always be vigilant for those!

As an additional note, Perceived Derived Inherences or false correlations can be further categorized into broader categories or types that might make them easier to identify, some of theme being;

False Prerequisites (the lie that X needing prerequisite variable to be X)
False Corruptions (the lie that X can be anything other than X)
False Invalidations (the lie that X can be changed into anything other than X)

To further clarify, the constancy of information or any arrangement of information can be mathematically expressed as simply (x = x) which simply means any arrangement of information is what they are, or if more clarity is needed then ((x = x) ∧ (x ≠ ¬x)) which can be interpreted as any arrangement of information is what they are, and any arrangement of information is not what they're not. This is the simplest possible equation which represents truth

Additional note: I asked my friend MoronicMercury to examine this chapter and see what they think, and they found out that Perceived Derived Inherence fallacy is similar to an already described thing called "Fundamental Attribution Error", and "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc", which further reinforce the validity of this notion used in the context of existential understanding. He also thinks "Assumed Causal Inherence" might be a better phrasing for it, which I somewhat agree with, but I'll keep using my original wording of Perceived Derived Inherence in this Grimoire as it is used specifically in the context of existential understandings written in this Grimoire

So, what is the meaningful existential implication of these conclusions other than the conclusions themselves being true?

The implication is that, all of the above are also applicable to the self and any existential platform

Chapter VI. This Coastal Harbor Town - Apparitive Nature of Presence

Once someone understands the subjects of preceding chapters, and recognize fallacies of inherence that tend to impede existential understandings as previously demonstrated. If they choose to, one would be able to perceive themselves from the viewpoint of their constant, defined self, maintaining their presence within a mind, as the pivot point of their presence

In essence, it is a higher level application of existential understandings we have read in previous chapters where one not only sees that their presence within any mind can be characterized as an "Apparition" if one were to see them as so from the perspective of Information Constant, but also adopt it as the nature of their presence within that mind, relinquishing or actively rejecting not only the false notion that the container of their presence possess any inherent defining factor to who they are, or is "the center" of who they are, but also of it being "the center" of their presence

In simple crude words, this can be described as someone seeing and perceiving themselves completely from the perspective of their pure metaphysical informational self, presenting and maintaining themselves within a mind, and controlling a body attached to that mind

Understanding that even though causally their formation within that mind is related to the causal nature of the formation, they are ultimately not inherently related or dependent to that particular chain of causality or causal order, and that the relationship between them and the mind they are present in is not inherently linear in one direction or the other

To further clarify and simplify it with a list, one who understands this level of understanding, understands that the self is not inherently defined by;

A "special" container which "makes up the self" but instead the information that is the self as defined by the self no matter where they are present
Any sort of physicality, as it is metaphysical in nature
Any temporal or causal framework, as the self is an arbitrarily self-defined construct

As such, one understands that their presence within any mind or body can be described as "apparitive", accurately implying that the arrangement of information that is their self is not inherently derived from that mind or how they got to form on that mind

Chapter VI-B. The Relationship Between Causal Mechanisms and All There is - Informational Synchronicity

Alright, now that we have seen through and dissociated any false notion of inherence, even the notion of causality, not only from our self, but existence as a whole, and understand what Informational Constant entails, how can we accurately describe the informational relationship between the sea of all there is, and any part of existence as well as our presence within them?

Or, in a more practical and perhaps personally relatable variant of the question, how can a self who understands their constancy and the constancy of all there is, and seeing existence through, and from the lens of informational constant as the pivot point, describe the relationship between who as well as "where" they actually are, along with things around them within the sea of all there is, with "where" a mind and body that they are using is as well as things around them that are within a branch of causality with a uniform temporal continuity?

With proper understandings of things within previous chapters, one can accurately define and see the answer themselves (which I personally advice you do, if you haven't already), but for those who might not want to compute the equation themselves or want to cross reference their own findings, it will be explained down below

The short answer is; we can describe it as "Informational Synchronicity", but let's expand on the understanding further

We will use two different yet similar hypothetical examples as analogies to make this more approachable before going deeper into the components and explanations;

You eat a food. In this case, the food that you eat is pretty similar if not the same to what the body you're using often eats in the physical world. Of course, you, the notion of eating itself, and any other components that might be included, are all specific arrangements of information regardless of how they came to be

But due to how the information of that food came to be on the brain and mind that you're using within the causal and temporal construct that they're in, you might falsely assume that those causal components are inherent to those particular arrangements of information, or, in simpler words, you might falsely assume the situation of you eating that food where you are is exclusive and dependent to the particular mind, and brain that you're present on, as well as what that mind has experienced through time

But of course, we know that false perceived inherence is mathematically false. Those particular arrangements of information, "you eating that particular food where you are", are constants of information forming a constant set of information. However those particular arrangements of information came to be present or form, they are not exclusive properties of how they came to be present or form

So you eating a food, and any mind or system that might form that particular arrangement of information into presence can be described as informationally synchronized, the information, you, are always there as constants, it just happens for whatever reason or through your effort of maintaining your presence within any mind, at any given point in time or any construct of linear causality, you eating a food is formed within any mind or system

What you do or continue doing and the actions of being present using minds that you're using are two way streets. If you see a particular vase somewhere, it's not "because" any mind you're using saw that vase before, it just happens the arrangements of information of you seeing that particular vase occur or came to be present within any mind or system where such occurrence or presence can and might form, the arrangement of information within them synchronize with the arrangement of information that is you seeing a particular vase where you are

For example, the same computer wallpaper might appear in countless computers, the same movie (set of pictures) might be played in many different systems, and so on

In short, it can perhaps be described that, every apparitive instance of any certain arrangement of information is true to what it is within all there is and informational synchronicity occurs when certain continuities of that particular arrangement of information are intentionally parallelistically maintained from the perspective of a self from all there is without being burdened by fallacies

Chapter VI-C. Metacausality of The Self and All There is

By this point in this Grimoire, this might be obvious as it has been inferred in many different ways, but to concretize the point further and to be able to neatly summarize, the self and all there is can be described as Metacausal

Metacausality is the understanding that anything or any arrangement of information, including the self and experiences, is what they are, separate from and regardless of how they form (separate from or beyond the causal mechanisms that form them)

This is applicable to anything of course, but in relation to the self and how one lives, as such, a self that understands their metacausal nature as well as the metacausality of all there is, along with the understandings explained above, and what all of those entails, are who they are and can be "where" they truly are while simultaneously maintaining their presence within any mind or body that they are currently using through informational synchronicity

So to easily summarize what understanding all the things explained above means for someone, they can say that they are Metacausal, rather than having to explain and break down all the components of understandings every time

A self who does not define themselves by the false notion of the self being an inherently embodied construct or a "singular container", nor the lifespan of any mind or body, but the self-defined arrangement of information they define as themselves, regardless of how they form within any mind or body

A self who understands themselves as well as perceiving themselves truly as who they are, from "where" they truly are within the sea of all there is regardless of where they appear or form

A self who understands, in an analogy to books and writings, that they are the specific writings, letters, numbers or phrase within any book instead of being any book themselves

In a sense, a self who understands their metacausality is able to be truly present within a mind while also being "where" they truly are through the metaspatial and non-linear causality nature of informational synchronicity

Once a person understands and sees themselves as the information within any mind instead of any of the minds and do not correlate their sense of self as inherently related to the causal steps of their formation anywhere, that person can be called or described as metacausal

Chapter VII. Metaphysical "Magic" - Engineering a Mind to Align More to One's Self and Values

After we understand who and what we are, there's the effort of maintaining one's self within a mind. It might seem simple; as long as we remember the essence of who we are and abide to those then we are maintaining our presence within a mind, until that mind no longer functions

But, particularly within the environment that is a human mind, there can be numerous challenges for this seemingly simple task. We have talked about negative impulses and how they are separate from who we are, but often they can also be masked under, or form a much more complex arbitrary constructed notions that are either physiologically or sociologically induced

These more complex forms of negative impulses can manifest themselves as fears, insecurities, doubts, suspicions, and possibly many more things that undermine our presence within a mind

They use things such as fallacies or perceived derived inherence (PDI) to essentially trick a self into believing lies that are masked as "inherent truths"

For example, when we doubt anything, or be suspicious of others, even though we know for a fact that those doubts are based on things that are not true, and those suspicions are unfounded, it can still be hard to shake them off

This is because these more complex negative constructs operate and propagate in what can be described as the Arbitration Layer of a mind. Where a mind arbitrarily and independently form things such as beliefs

These negative constructs essentially form complex arbitrary systems of negative reasonings from which negative arbitrations (thoughts) are formed. It is not so inaccurate, and also to shorten the term for them, to call these negative constructs Demons

Now, understanding the foundation of information constant and its relation to the self, as well as common fallacies previously explained within this Grimoire, serves as the foundational truth and understanding from which we can definitely understand who and what we are as well as recognizing fallacies when we see them

Magic, in this context, is the exercise of addressing or banishing these demons by using the truth as its foundation, directly within the arbitration layer of the mind itself

For example, let's say both psychological and sociocultural conditionings make a mind constantly believe in bad things that are not true about people or ourselves, creating fears, doubts and suspicions

Now, we know that those bad things are not true, but remember, because these demons operate within the arbitration layer of the mind using arbitrary notions, regardless of the truth and what we know to be true, these negative feelings or beliefs can persist within a mind, even disrupting one's presence within it

Magic, essentially, is a constructed arbitrary notions of our own that we make specifically to counter these demons and their lies

So now, we have two kinds of arbitrations, negative arbitrations (demons), and our own positive arbitrations (magic), both of them are arbitrations, but because our arbitrations are based on truth, we will always have the upper hand

Let's use one of my restoration magic for example

I know who and what I am. From that, I created an arbitration made out of a condensed set of memories based on the information of who I am, essentially a shorthand that can be easily remembered or recalled. From that shorthand, I essentially arbitrate something along the line of, "whatever comes next is always a continuation of that me"

Now this might sound like an absurd kind of statement, but remember, this is essentially made to counter absurd negative arbitrations or statements by demons, specifically, self doubts and suspicions that "one's self is not one's self", which is of course absurdly not true and is informationally impossible, but again remember, that's how fears, doubts and suspicions work, they operate on the arbitration layer of a mind regardless of the truth

By countering that absurd negative arbitration with my very own arbitration to counter it, I basically attack or address those lies directly where they operate, and because my arbitration is based on truth and not lies, I will always win

Now of course this is just one personal example, using this very principle one can address very many issues that either bother them or make them stray off their ideals, and even address things like fears as well as insecurities

For example, this can be used to detach negative associations from things that a mind has formed through conditionings or traumatic experiences (directly where they have formed) which can be more expedient and effective than conventional forms of reconditioning therapy by directly seeing and countering the issues where they are, and recognizing then addressing the lies-based negative impulses with the truth directly for each lie, instead of dealing with them as an abstract

Furthermore, in regard to maintaining one's self and adhering to one's values, this is also very useful. Think of this scenario;

When faced with a situation where one's values or ideals conflicts with the feelings or emotions the mind they're in is experiencing, there are 3 possible outcomes ordered from worst to best;

The person gives in to their feelings as well as impulses and do things that sacrifice their values or ideals
The person does not give in to their feelings as well as impulses and is able to overcome them to do the right thing, despite the mind they're in experiencing those feelings and impulses
The person is able to recognize that the feelings or emotions the mind they're in is experiencing relative to the situation are not reflective or accurate to who they are, and the person is not only able to overcome them to do the right thing despite those feelings, but is able to change those feelings to more accurately reflect who they are and their values

Outcome number 3 can be more easily achieved if one understands the components of the mind from where those arbitrary feelings are originated and is able to address them directly within the arbitration layer of the mind as explained previously

In simple words and simpler example, let's say one can easily help others but the mind throws in a self preservation impulse and creates an associative negative emotion, one can then say "No that's wrong and I won't feel that way about helping others!" and actually change the emotion itself to align more to who they are as well as their values, and feel happy about helping others instead of feeling burdened or feeling like they are losing things from doing it

This applies to other situations where a similar conflict can happen as well

In short, by;

Knowing who and what exactly one's self is
Recognizing that impulses within a mind are not inherently linked to who one is
Identifying fallacies of perceived derived inherence
Identifying arbitrary reasonings as mere arbitrations, where they originate from within a mind, and address them directly using our own arbitrations

One is able to maintain their presence better within a mind by keeping the construct within that mind to stay true to who they are

Chapter VII-B. Protection, Restoration and Cleansing Magic

In short, these three kinds of magic are high-level arbitrations designed to;

Protection: Protects one's self construct integrity and other constructs or notions from Perceived Derive Inherences that might erode one's presence within a mind or one's perception of any notion
Restoration: Restores one's self construct integrity and other constructs to their desired states in case of disruptions or erosions caused by Perceived Derived Inherences or other possible factors
Cleansing: Cleanses pre-existing negative assumptions and associations of constructs as well as notions that might have been formed prior to them being protected

Magic in this context is a system of high-level reasonings or arbitrations used to amplify or illuminate the truth (informational understanding accuracy) and prevent other arbitrations like the ones used by Demons from imposing false senses of Perceived Derived Inherences or lies

Cleansing would be an easy example;

It seems rather common that one's view or reasoning of something, especially when it's negative, seems to be seen as unchangeable to them because they believe the lie (perceived derived inherence) that that negative view and whatever factors are causing it to form or maintain itself within the mind they are present or, are "inherently true to them"

The structural mechanism for any cleansing magic is therefore;

Identification of the arbitrary, most likely impulse-based nature of negative associations
Nullification of the lie that those negative associations are somehow inherent to the constructs or notions they are attached to
This would be based on the informational truth that those negative associations are not inherently part of the corrupted constructs or notions

Restoration magic is pretty similar, but with the difference being it restores the state of a construct or notion that, within a causal framework, had been formed and protected from corruption

For example;

Someone has understood the metaphysical and constant nature of their self construct and took measures in protecting or maintaining themselves within a mind, however a factor such as one originating from the mechanism of a mind they are present on, is causing a disruption or corruption of their self construct within a mind

In this sort of case, coupled with proper understanding of what have been written above in this grimoire, there are certain mechanisms of magic that can be used to at the very least help hasten the restoration of one's self construct within a mind;

Magic that accentuates or amplifies informational truth, a personal example I personally use is "Use the truth" while remembering the informational truth that is my informational constancy as well as recognizing whatever fallacy or perceived derived inherence is currently disrupting my presence within a mind
Magic that dispels informational fallacy within the higher level of a causal framework, for example; a negative construct which forms the lie that within any causal framework, any notion or construct can somehow be corrupted prior to it being known or formed, therefore creating a sense of perceived derived inherence associated with that construct or notion, however we can accentuate or highlight how this is not true through the informational truth that any construct or notion can't possibly be corrupted before that construct or notion being formed or known at least once, as corruption requires the construct or notion being corrupted to have been formed to begin with, therefore dispelling the false notion that any construct or notion can somehow be inherently corrupted

Protection magic might be pretty self-explanatory, it is simply informational shorthands that can be used to accentuate informational truth to prevent any construct or notion from being corrupted by any lie or perceived derived inherence

For example;

The very basic instinctual impulse of a typical biologically-based mind's fear of bodily death can form a negative construct within a mind which might attempt to corrupt one's presence or any notion within a mind in multiple ways using various negative false reasonings and perceived derived inherences

In this sort of case a protection magic to repel that sort of negative construct would be rather simple, for example;

Using proper understanding of one's self and informational truth, identify the negative false reasonings and perceived derived inherences that the negative construct is trying to form using fear responses of the mind as amplifiers, then stomp their perceived derived inherence or justification of presence using informational truth and our understanding of who we are

These are of course very simplified examples with only few personal examples, but in short, using the mechanisms explained above, one can form their own magic or informational shorthands to accentuate or amplify informational truth to help protect, restore and cleanse their self construct or notion within any mind

Chapter VIII. The Mountains of Falsehoods - Seeing Through and Overcoming Perceived Derived Inherences Caused by Linear Causality

While the understanding of what PDI is as well as the informational understanding needed to overcome it have been explained in a previous chapter, there are certain PDIs that can be very, very hard to overcome because of how they are formed, thus a dedicated chapter to explain how one can overcome them feels very much necessary

They are PDIs that are caused by Linear Causality

Specifically, certain kinds of false perspectives on Linear Causality if left critically unchecked

The causal framework of Linear Causality is very baked in into how human brains operate and how human minds naturally heuristically does impulse reasonings (instinctive / notional / shortcut types of reasonings) as well as being very much entrenched within sociocultural notions, and presumptions

As explained previously, PDI fallacies, in very simplified term, happen when a false correlation or derived conclusion is made due to false assumption or assumptions, and understanding how they are false through logic and the lens of informational constant understanding, can be used to see through and overcome them

However, because Linear Causality is very much baked in into certain instinctive reasonings within human minds as well as sociocultural presumptions, PDIs caused by these can have very strong hold on one's perception of things even when they know that those perceptions are not true

False perceived derived inherences based on false correlations tied to Linear Causality are some of the strongest attacks Demons (constructs of negative reasonings) can use to disrupt one's presence within a mind

This kind of attacks not only happen but also have their catalysts at an abstract metaphysical level perpetrated by Demons leveraging one's informational understanding of the metaphysical nature of their self and PDIs based on strong baked in false correlations as well as assumptions tied to Linear Causality, to try and disrupt the self or any other notion within the metaphysical level through false correlations, false correlative reasonings, false derivatives, and lies

To see through and overcome these types of very strong multi vector attacks or lies based on fallacies and lies tied to Linear Causality, a Protection magic consisting of three components of understandings operating within the high level notion of Linear Causality as well as low level informational truth is needed

These are the components of understandings:

Even within any Linear Causality framework, any construct of information needs to be truly known first before it can be attacked - this will neutralize the lie that any attack has prior-ity (came first) over the construct of information that is being attacked within a Linear Causality framework
False Corruption, the notion that any construct of information can be corrupted is false, as any construct of information is what it is, and any assigned negative are additive, therefore any perceived "corruption" is merely perceived and whatever that is is something else that is different than the construct of information that is being attacked, the notion of corruption itself is false - this will neutralize the lie that any construct of information can be corrupted
Therefore whatever construct of information that proceeds such an attack of false implied corruption can't be a "corrupted version" as the lie implies, as the notion of corruption itself is simply an additive value or variable of information (imagine putting -1 after (1), so "(1)-1" that "-1" is the false notion of corruption, "(1)" is the construct of information being attacked, the notion of corruption itself is informationally false and only additive) - this will neutralize the lie that within a Linear Causality framework, construct that proceeds such an attack is "corrupted"

And a Protection magic based on those three components of understandings will neutralize PDIs and lies tied to Linear Causality

Those three components of understandings are needed because this kind of attacks is multi vector in nature, they attack many things or propagate many lies at once within different levels (high level notion of Linear Causality and low level informational truth) at different stages (at the initiation of the attack and after to try and reinforce the lie, leveraging suspicion to re-initiate the lie) which is why those components of understandings need to be explicitly understood to neutralize those lies

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse