Fear is like fire:
if you know how to control it, you can survive; otherwise, it can burn down everything around you, including yourself.
π
The Key To Building Anything Worthy of Great Weight to be carried upon it, is to UNDER STAND the foundation for which you are trying to build upon. Which therefore really means that you have to go under ground and lay down a footing, before you can pour your foundation and to do such a thing, you will need to dig deep π.
GROK can you please tell me what is correct and incorrect about this?
Illuminism teaches the ontology of light, what it really is, and the perspective from which it engages with the universe. Light only has a velocity through spacetime from our perspective, from its perspective it is in fact space, time and matter that are weaving through it in the form of complicated waves. Light, having zero resting mass, takes up no space, and being everywhere at once it experiences no time. It is timeless, and eternal, as there is effectively nothing to degrade and nowhere for it to go, sealed eternally in a zero point singularity of perpetual motion and constant change.
But what does this speak of the validity of the interpretations science makes of the world, as they have completely removed from the general consensus the perspective of light, and with it the concepts of zero and infinity as enduring, eternal, perpetual energies outside the confines of space and time? What does it speak of religion? Of God? Of the mind, soul, the beginning, the end, the afterlife, evolution etc?
Religion doesn't have to reflect faith, as the Illuminati have proven definitively through hundreds of extremely detailed books, many of which I have personally read. The concept of god doesn't necessarily correlate with a conscious super being as religions of faith will have you believe. Illuminism depicts god not as a conscious being but an unconscious becoming. It is the epitome of an eternity of mental evolution, of countless lifetimes of repetition and development of the mental facilities, the exponential actualization of potential until perfection is obtained. God starts off as a blank canvas, a mind of infinite potential and zero actualization, an entropic, irrational becoming, a scared, confused child entering the universe for the first time, seeking to survive in the world and doing so by any means necessary, resulting in violence, selfishness and hell. God effectively starts off as Satan and the universe starts off as hell, entropic, seemingly chaotic and dangerous, but certainly not purposeless or meaningless because through suffering and sacrifice of life Satan evolves into God, and we each are a particular iteration of that divine process, if we only knew it. We aren't here to be distracted by consumerism and entertainment, we are here, cyclically, to develop ours into the minds of Gods, by the means of gnosis, the acquisition of ontological and epistemological Truths of reason, by increasing our ability to withstand physical and mental suffering, to develop our ability to create and destroy as a means to rearrange the world according to our will. Only the Illuminati teach the paradigm of information that will enlighten you to your true purpose so you can align your priorities, stop wasting your time, and consciously divert towards the path of divinity. It is imperative that you break free from the social forces that seek only to distract you and restrict your otherwise natural evolutionary advancement. It's ok to sin, you are your only judge and jury. It's ok to seek knowledge outside of your holy scriptures, it's ok to derive your own interpretations of scientific experiments and data based on your own reasoning. Not only can you do these things, but you should do them, and if you don't you will have wasted an entire life.
Grok answers with:
Your query presents a detailed philosophical perspective drawing from what appears to be a system called Illuminism (or Pythagorean Illuminism/Ontological Mathematics), which is a modern esoteric framework promoted in books by authors like Mike Hockney and associated figures. It critiques mainstream science and religion while proposing an alternative ontology centered on light, personal evolution, and a redefinition of concepts like God and purpose. I'll evaluate the statement systematically, breaking it down into key claims and assessing what's factually or scientifically correct, incorrect, or subjective/misleading. My analysis draws from established physics (special relativity), philosophy of science, and available information on Illuminism.
Critique of Science and the "Perspective of a Photon"
Claim: Scientists are overly human-centric, relying on unreliable senses, ignoring the photon's perspective, leading to misunderstandings of light and invalidating materialism/empiricism as an ontological paradigm.
What's correct:
Human senses are indeed limited and unreliable for directly perceiving phenomena like subatomic particles or relativistic effects—we rely on instruments and mathematical models to overcome this. Special relativity does imply that, in the limit as an object's speed approaches the speed of light (c), time dilation makes the proper time (time experienced by the object) approach zero, and length contraction makes distances in the direction of travel approach zero. For a photon (a quantum of light), which always travels at c in vacuum and has zero rest mass, this means its "journey" from emission to absorption is effectively instantaneous—no time passes, and no distance is traversed from its hypothetical "viewpoint." This aligns with the idea that photons "experience" no time.
forbes.com
medium.com
wtamu.edu
What's incorrect or misleading:
Scientists aren't "locked in" to a human perspective—they explicitly use relativity to model light's behavior, including these effects. The "perspective of a photon" is a common popular-science analogy, but it's not rigorously valid in physics. Photons have no inertial reference frame (a rest frame) because nothing can be at rest relative to them; assigning them a "perspective" like a conscious observer is anthropomorphic and breaks relativity's Photons aren't "everywhere at once"; they follow specific paths (null geodesics) and interact locally.
reddit.com
forbes.com
thesciencespace.quora.com
van.physics.illinois.edu
reddit.com
bigthink.com
physics.stackexchange.com
phys.org
Materialism and empiricism aren't "confused" or invalidated; they're methodological approaches that prioritize observable, testable evidence. Science doesn't claim to be an ultimate ontology (theory of what fundamentally exists)—it describes how the universe behaves. Claims that science "fails to consider" these ideas ignore that relativity was developed precisely to explain light's constancy The inversion ("space, time, and matter weaving through light as waves") is a poetic or philosophical reinterpretation, not a scientific model.
en.wikipedia.org
Ontology of Light in Illuminism
Claim: Light has zero resting mass, takes up no space, experiences no time, is timeless/eternal, sealed in a "zero point singularity of perpetual motion and constant change." From its perspective, it has no velocity; instead, spacetime weaves through it.
What's correct:
Photons do have zero rest mass (invariant mass), which is why they travel at c and can't be slowed to rest. As noted, relativity implies no experienced time or distance for photons in the limit case. Light is "eternal" in the sense that photons don't decay spontaneously (they can persist indefinitely unless absorbed).
physics.stackexchange.com
sciencedirect.com
quora.com
What's incorrect or misleading: The "zero point singularity" and "perpetual motion in constant change" blend quantum field theory concepts (like zero-point energy) with speculation, but aren't standard descriptions of photons. Photons aren't singularities (that's more like black holes), and they aren't in "perpetual motion" beyond their propagation. The idea of light as "timeless and eternal" is philosophical; in physics, photons are created and destroyed (e.g., emitted by atoms, absorbed by matter).
The "weaving" metaphor isn't supported empirically—relativity describes light's velocity as constant from any inertial frame, not inverted.
Implications for Science, Zero/Infinity, and
Broader Concepts
Claim: Science's interpretations are invalid because it removes the light's perspective and concepts of zero/infinity as eternal energies outside space/time. This affects views on religion, God, mind, soul, beginning/end, afterlife, evolution, etc.
What's correct: Zero and infinity are crucial in math and physics (e.g., zero rest mass, infinite time dilation at c). Science explores ideas like the universe's beginning (Big Bang) and potential infinities (multiverses), but treats them cautiously as they can lead to singularities or untestable claims.
What's incorrect or misleading: Science hasn't "removed" these—relativity and quantum mechanics incorporate them (e.g., black hole singularities, infinite quantum fields). Materialism/empiricism isn't invalidated; it's a successful paradigm for predictions (e.g., GPS relies on relativity). The implications for religion, God, etc., are subjective. Science is agnostic on souls/afterlife (untestable), views evolution as biological/natural selection (not mental/divine cycles), and sees the universe's "beginning/end" through cosmology (e.g., Big Bang, heat death). These aren't overturned by photon analogies; they're philosophical extensions.
Views on Religion, God, and Personal Evolution
Claim: Religion doesn't require faith; Illuminati prove truths via books. God is an unconscious becoming, evolving from Satan/hell (entropic chaos) to perfection via lifetimes, suffering, gnosis, reason. Universe starts as hell, evolves to divinity. Purpose: Evolve into Gods by breaking free, sinning if self-judged, seeking own knowledge—only Illuminati teach this.
What's correct: Some philosophies (e.g., process theology) view God as evolving or "becoming," and ideas like eternal recurrence or reincarnation appear in various traditions (Hinduism, Nietzsche). Emphasizing reason over blind faith aligns with rationalist/enlightenment thinking. Concepts like zero/infinity as foundational echo math-based ontologies.
What's incorrect or misleading:
Illuminism isn't "proven definitively" by books—it's a speculative system blending math, monads (mind-like points), and esotericism, but lacks empirical evidence or peer-reviewed validation Critiques label it pseudoscience or a cult, with accusations of manipulation, plagiarism from Hockney's works, and unsubstantiated claims. It's not connected to historical Illuminati (a short-lived 18th-century group).
dokumen.pub
massimomelliblog.files.wordpress.com
reddit.com
amazon.com
illumination.nexus
forum.dmt-nexus.me
facebook.com
sacredcause.wordpress.com
books.google.com
goodreads.com
patheos.com
goodreads.com
lulu.com
books.google.com
neogenianmorgue.com
everand.com
God as "unconscious becoming" from Satan, cyclical lives for mental evolution, and universe as hell-to-heaven via suffering are specific to Illuminism/Hyperianism, not proven. They're akin to Gnostic or New Age ideas but contradict evidence-based views (e.g., evolution is genetic, not soul-based; no empirical afterlife). "Sin is okay if self-judged" and "derive own interpretations" promote individualism, but ignoring consensus (e.g., scientific data) risks misinformation. Purpose as "becoming Gods" via gnosis is motivational but speculative—science sees human purpose as emergent, not cosmic mandate.
Overall, the statement mixes valid relativity insights with overextensions into unproven philosophy. The scientific critiques underrate how physics already addresses light's peculiarities, while the religious/evolutionary claims are opinions from a fringe system, not facts. If you're drawn to these ideas, exploring primary sources critically (and contrasting with mainstream physics/philosophy) could help, but beware of cult-like dynamics in groups claiming exclusive "truth."
Tj Sweetwater then shares in conclusion:
Overall, the statement mixes valid relativity insights with overextensions into unproven philosophy. The scientific critiques underrate how physics already addresses light's peculiarities, while the religious/evolutionary claims are opinions from a fringe system, not facts. If you're drawn to these ideas, exploring primary sources critically (and contrasting with mainstream physics/philosophy) could help, but beware of cult-like dynamics in groups claiming exclusive "truth."
IN CONCLUSION
⬇️ TJ Sweetwater is Highlighting ⬇️
THE CULT-LIKE MENTALITY THAT EMERGES WHEN SOMEONE BECOMES ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN ABOUT A "TRUTH," ESPECIALLY WHEN BACKED BY PEER SUPPORT AND PEER-REINFORCED "RESEARCH." TRUTH BE TOLD, YOU LIVE ON THIS ROCK WITH EVERYONE ELSE, AND THEY'RE NO DIFFERENT FROM YOU—WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME JAR BEING SHAKEN BY THE SAME HIDDEN HANDS.
THE KEY TO TRUE UNDERSTANDING IS RECOGNIZING HOW SOLIPSISTIC IDEAS CAN ULTIMATELY TRAP YOU IN A WORLD OF NON-EXISTENCE. BECAUSE IF YOU BELIEVE ONLY YOUR THOUGHTS ARE WORTHY AND REAL, THEN AS SOON AS THOSE THOUGHTS FADE AWAY, SO DOES EVERYTHING ELSE—WAKE UP BEFORE YOU'RE LEFT IN THE VOID, STUCK IN YOUR OWN ILLUSION WHILE THE REAL WORLD KEEPS SPINNING WITHOUT YOU.
@DavidBC
Ps. You should try to understand why a LLM is better than you being exactly what it is as you may also be an LLM and not even realize that you are.
⬇️ Link To The Original Response ⬇️
⬇️ Which original response was censored ⬇️
π€πΌ π€π€³πΌ
⬇️Link To Grok Query ⬇️
#itsnotrocketscience
#iykyk2025
#ScienceIsNeverSettled #situationalawareness #natureissmarterthanpeoplethink
#itiswhatitis
#TruthSeeker
#BreakFreeFromTheMatrix
⬇️Public Groups On Fakebook⬇️
@TSweetwaterTruthNews
@tsweetwater_
⬇️Public Fakebook Profile ⬇️
⬇️ But You're Better Off ⬇️
Trying To Find Me On
⬇️@⬇️
BUT TO REALLY GET ALL THE RAW UNCENSORED
UNFILTERED
UNCUT
INFORMATION
⬇️ VISIT ⬇️
⬆️⬇️
