Sign up to EliteSkills




Already have an account? Login to Roleplay.Cloud
Forgot password? Recover Password

Tesseract


Author: monad1
ASL Info:    69/M/California
Elite Ratio:    3.45 - 13 /9 /9
Words: 702
Class/Type: Story /Nature
Total Views: 94
Average Vote:    No vote yet.
Bytes: 4311



Description:




Tesseract




If one considers the tesseract as a worm hole that gets stronger as it traverses the distance traveled time spent to become the clairaudience clairvoyance of astral projection’s existential extremity……..I mean like what is the nature of exigence exodus’s exponentially extemporaneous. I mean given that infinite possibility is the nature of omnipresence’s omniscience and we are but a refractively reflective embodiment of its integrable form’s extant: the residual harmonic vibrations of kinetic supremacy’s trajectory.
So I ask again “Is intellectual sentience the catalyst for the evolution of God?” Perhaps if we all practice zoomorphic zoolatry on the social contiguities of demagoguery the vicarious recalcitrance of its objectified manifest will raise us all to new heights of enigmatism.
But no, we are but relatively extraneous interpolations of adhesively practical extremity. We’re not capable of transmuting our environment with the imbue in the exude of our emote, despite the concoctions we xenobiotic prosthesis. We are incapable of interceding en masse on our own behalf as an integrated unit. We don’t amount to the seven five six-y on it to eight. We are more the four-ness of three given the two-y-ness of one. The 3D macro of the fecundity of micro’s induction's fertility.
I submit:

“Before there was anything that mattered everything that would ever be existed , it was the essence of totality , it was without dimensional constriction or necessitated form . Optimistically speaking time had no relative realism to its progression because realistically nothing had happened yet . As it continued it became according to its innate inflections as a functionally integrable form . The questionably understandable nature of its conjunction was an omnipotent directive beyond necessitated action or morphological construction . The enigmatic consciousness of its relatively interrelated conception was spontaneous and yet it continued without elemental omniscience.”

And

“As the relative complexity of its interrelations evolved dimensional consistence was born. Humanly understandable laws of physical integration governed many facets of its conjunction yet the totality of its ramification was beyond humanly realistic conjecture .”

And

Given the theory of ultimate entropy and the probable cyclic nature of existence……and given that there probably was no beginning so therefore an eternity has already passed, ”I have a theory: This spatiotemporal fecundity, this creationism occurs at such an imperceptible rate that positive eons of quadrillions of ages must pass in order for the cosmos to replenish its stockpile of physical matter (possibly matter without atomic structure as we know it) so that a new cycle of infinite big bangs in infinite space can occur.”

Yes, it seems that basic gravity has extent on the extremity. Huge sections of it slowly implode until the compression causes a singularity, or so it would seem. Who knows, perhaps some of these big bangs have different periodic tables than ours. I mean why would they all be the same, given that infinite possibility is the nature of omnipresence’s ubiquity.
I like to think I cerebral cortex climax matrix resemble but there’s a vast difference between relative rationality and rational relativity. Noumenal sentience’s semantic regalia is incorporeity ideology’s platonic proxy incarnate for after all what is the nature of problematic prosthesis to mystic symbiotics?
Protractive analyses of dimensional delineation are in order. The basic fecundity of spatiotemporal telemetry’s virility had an exogamy with the infinite vastness and the inky blackness. It’s some pretty inimitable stuff, trajectory extant and all.
So, back to the tesseract perhaps the creativities of imagination’s immaturities are teleportational translucence to transcendency verve. Then again perhaps we are corporeally preternatural finites and adjunctly juxtapositional is beyond our metaphysical mystique………I like to think not!!! Tesseract.




Submitted on 2022-02-23 16:24:25     Terms of Service / Copyright Rules
Edit post

Rate This Submission

1: >_<
2: I dunno...
3: meh!
4: Pretty cool
5: Wow!




Comments


   The evolution of God?

Some people who regard themselves scientists casually dismiss the idea of God yet hold to the belief that they can simply regress backwards through time observed perceptions of cosmic expansion into that which was originally mocked into being called the big bang, AKA the origin of the Universe. The same people, however, apparently cannot begin to fathom a progression forward through time of the same observations with regards to the continuing evolution of the status quo human mind beyond the capabilities of their own three pounds of electrochemically active meat brains.

This does not even take into consideration the fact that human life on Earth is relatively new to this universe and that other minds may well have been evolving for billions of years before Earth's crust even cooled down from its formative eons. Once even a single God-like mind comes into play, the whole issue of time and whether such development took any time at all becomes completely moot. Well, IMHO. At such point if this Universe is deemed unsatisfactory, simply create a new one?

This is amusing... What might the aliens think?
THEY’RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
Terry Bisson
| Posted on 2022-02-25 00:00:00 | by Blue Monk | [ Reply to This ]


Think Feedback more than Compliments :: [ Guidelines ]

1. Be honest.
2. Try not to give only compliments.
3. How did it make you feel?
4. Why did it make you feel that way?
5. Which parts?
6. What distracted from the piece?
7. What was unclear?
8. What does it remind you of?
9. How could it be improved?
10. What would you have done differently?
11. What was your interpretation of it?
12. Does it feel original?



202808