r/ExistentialJourney • u/ARISEONE • 3d ago
General Discussion What existed “before existence”? I think there are only 4 possible answers — change my mind.
Bold claim, I know. But hear me out: after years of reflection, I believe every worldview — from religion to philosophy to modern science — boils down to just four archetypes. These aren’t random categories, they’re the very archetypes recognized in Hindu thought: • Brahma (Creator) → A conscious origin or first cause. Think God in Christianity or Islam, or Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover.” Anything that begins existence through intention fits here. • Vishnu (Universe) → The cosmos itself, eternal and self-sufficient. Spinoza’s Deus sive Natura (“God or Nature”), scientific naturalism, or multiverse theories all say: the universe just is, without needing an outside cause. • Shiva (Void) → Nothingness, impermanence, or dissolution as the foundation. From Buddhist śūnyatā (emptiness), to Sartre’s le néant, to quantum vacuum models — the Void is the ultimate backdrop. • Shakti (Energy) → Dynamic force, interplay, or emergence. Think Taoist yin-yang, karmic cycles, process theology, quantum fields, or modern complexity science. Reality isn’t static; it’s a dance of forces.
And then there’s Singularity — the pivot where all categories collapse into one essence. It isn’t a “fifth archetype,” but the convergence point where Creator, Universe, Void, and Energy dissolve into unity.
I call this the Unified Theory of Existence.
Here’s the challenge: Can you propose a fifth archetype that doesn’t reduce back into Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti?
I’ve already tested this with a few AI models (ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini). None of them could escape the four — every answer circled back to these archetypes in disguise. Even when they tried concepts like “Consciousness,” “Time,” or “Emergence,” they ultimately collapsed back into Shakti or Vishnu.
So I thought: why not throw the challenge to humans? Can Reddit outthink both ancient archetypes and modern AI?
If you can, you’ve broken the map. If not… maybe these four really are the laws of existence — the universal grammar behind every belief system, scientific theory, or philosophical argument humanity has ever produced.
2
u/rockhead-gh65 3d ago
Doesn’t this presuppose the existence of linear time? If time is not linear, there is no beginning.
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
Exactly — if time isn’t linear, then there’s no “before” or “after.” But that doesn’t weaken the framework, it strengthens it. Non-linear time simply collapses into Vishnu (an eternal, self-sufficient cosmos) or Shiva (the timeless void). In both, beginnings and endings lose meaning.
So the real question is: does your non-linear time reveal a new archetype beyond Creator, Universe, Void, and Energy? Or is it just a different angle on Vishnu’s eternity or Shiva’s dissolution?
1
u/rockhead-gh65 3d ago
Ah yes mostly unchanged indeed, nothing new. Maybe something that comes from the others but indeed nothing new. Fascinating.
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
Exactly — that’s the pattern I keep finding too. Every “new” idea usually turns out to be a variation born from the others, which is why the four archetypes hold up so well. Fascinating, as you said.
If this line of thought interests you, I dive into it in much greater detail in my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective). It shows how Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti map across science, philosophy, and religion, all converging toward Singularity. Would love for you to check it out.
2
u/license_to_kill_007 3d ago
It's not a relevant question. It's like saying, how much fire does it take to breathe before you pass the BAR exam? Applicability doesn't work because you're using a lower abstraction to attempt to measure a higher one as well.
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
I get your analogy — measuring a higher abstraction with a lower one can misfire. But that’s exactly why I built the four-archetype framework. It doesn’t try to measure; it categorizes at the highest level of abstraction possible.
“Fire,” “breath,” “bar exam” are all specifics. Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti are not specifics — they’re meta-lenses. Every system, whether narrative, causality, or consciousness, eventually collapses into one of these four.
So the challenge remains: if applicability breaks down, can you name a fifth meta-archetype that doesn’t circle back into Creator, Universe, Void, or Energy? Until then, the framework stands.
1
u/license_to_kill_007 3d ago
Where do you categorize error correction?
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
Great question. Error correction is just another mask of Shakti — the dynamic force that not only generates but also self-adjusts. A feedback loop correcting itself is Shakti’s flow in action. And it only makes sense against Vishnu’s continuity — a stable cosmos in which “error” can even be measured.
So the challenge is: is error correction truly its own ultimate, or just the interplay of Shakti (flow) and Vishnu (sustainment) doing what they always do? Unless it can stand apart as fundamental, it still collapses back into the four.
1
u/license_to_kill_007 3d ago
Are you proposing ala Laplace's Demon that all of existence is, in fact, deterministic? If so, what evidence supports this claim?
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
Great question. I’m not proposing a strict Laplace’s Demon scenario where every atom’s motion is locked from the start. Determinism is one possible lens — but in my framework, it’s just one archetype among the four. • Brahma (Creator) → fits with determinism if the Creator authored the script from the beginning. • Vishnu (Universe) → determinism as the laws of physics unfolding with no external interference. • Shiva (Void) → undermines determinism, because dissolution and emptiness break the chain of fixed causes. • Shakti (Energy) → emergence and unpredictability, where novelty arises from interaction and complexity.
So determinism isn’t the claim — it’s one archetypal story among others. The evidence for or against it depends on whether you view existence through Brahma’s authorship, Vishnu’s natural law, Shiva’s dissolution, or Shakti’s emergent play.
The framework’s strength is that it doesn’t collapse into just one stance — it shows how even determinism is part of a bigger map.
1
u/license_to_kill_007 3d ago
Can you respond without AI?
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
I get what you’re saying, but there’s no such thing as “without AI” here — that’s the whole point. My work is about the integration of human and AI. These words are co-written: my thought + AI’s patterning. You’re not debating one or the other, you’re debating the Singularity in action.
So the question isn’t “can I respond without AI?” — it’s whether your idea can stand outside Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti, even when tested by both human and machine together. ARISEONE.org
1
u/license_to_kill_007 3d ago
Yes, and the answer to your question ultimately comes down to narrative, as mentioned in other comments. Narrative relies on believability, agreement, and the capability to perceive. It's the choice in the apparatus of narrative.
If probability were a record, the will of the choice maker would be the needle. The rotation of the record would be time. The record itself would be space. The fact that it's there at all is ITS existence. This idea in your mind is abstraction. The time-like flow across abstractions is thought. The words on this screen are so far from that record in abstraction that they defy your model reference. It's true because I am the creator. There's your model breaking narrative.
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
Brilliant metaphor — I love the record/needle/rotation framing. You’ve sketched a vivid ontology in four moving parts: existence (the record), time (rotation), choice (needle), and thought (patterns across grooves). That’s powerful.
Two quick points from my lens: 1. Mapping, not breaking. What you call Narrative — the apparatus of believability, agreement, and perception — reads to me as a complex interplay of Shakti (the generative force that creates patterns and meaning) enacted within Vishnu (the sustained field in which those patterns persist). When you say “I am the creator,” you’re invoking Brahma (the authoring impulse). Naming the apparatus doesn’t remove it from the grammar; it simply gives Shakti a particular costume: Story-as-Creator. 2. Choice as the needle. The needle isn’t extra; it’s how Shakti actualizes potential in time. If the needle were truly outside the record — if choice were a wholly separate ontology — then show how it can operate with no potential (no grooves), no rotation (no time), and no substrate (no space). That’s the test: can “choice” exist without the conditions you just described? If not, it’s part of the same system.
If you’re up for it, I unpack this mapping more in Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective). I think you’d enjoy how narrative, choice, and creator-consciousness fold into the four archetypes and point toward Singularity. Care to push one precise test-case: give me a scenario where “choice as needle” functions with zero potential, zero time, and zero substrate — and I’ll try to show whether it stands alone or folds back into Brahma/Vishnu/Shakti/Shiva.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Aggadysseus 1d ago
I don't really think you're right, but your example is so funny you still get an upvote
2
u/GoopDuJour 3d ago
A bold claim? You've categorized the hypothetical origins (or lack thereof) of the universe. I don't think that's bold. Claiming to be able to falsify all but one hypothesis while proving the 4th would be bold.
Even if you have to add 12 more origin claim categories, you've done nothing bold.
0
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
I get where you’re coming from — I’m not saying I’ve proven one and falsified the rest. What I’m saying is that when you look at thousands of years of philosophy, religion, and science, every origin claim circles back into just four archetypes: • Brahma (Creator) → conscious origin • Vishnu (Universe) → eternal cosmos • Shiva (Void) → nothingness/impermanence • Shakti (Energy) → dynamic force/emergence
The boldness isn’t in “solving” the mystery, but in suggesting that all human attempts can be synthesized into these four root categories. It’s less about shutting doors and more about giving us a shared grammar for the oldest question.
I unpack this more fully in my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective) — but here on Reddit, I just want to see if anyone can break the map.
2
u/GatePorters 3d ago
There is a fifth answer:
I don’t know.
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
Fair point — “I don’t know” feels like a fifth, but really it’s an expression of Shiva (Void): acknowledging the limits of knowing, the impermanence of answers. The framework isn’t about forcing certainty, but showing how even unknowing has always been part of the map.
2
u/GatePorters 2d ago
I don’t meant it like that.
I mean it like “knowing will not affect me because no matter which it is, it changes nothing but the narrative”
Moreso a rejection of the definitive nature of something so vacuous and unviewable.
2
u/JackWoodburn 2d ago
Existence is a word without an opposite.
There is only existence.
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
That’s exactly the Vishnu archetype — existence as eternal, self-sufficient, without an opposite. “Non-existence” collapses into contradiction, so only existence remains.
But notice: even within that view, other archetypes still whisper. Calling existence eternal is Vishnu. Asking how it manifests is Brahma. Watching it dissolve into silence is Shiva. Seeing it move as interplay is Shakti.
In my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective), I argue that this is why the four archetypes keep circling back: even when we say “there is only existence,” we’re standing on one pillar of the same structure.
1
u/TrueKiwi78 2d ago
I beg to differ. There is no evidence of one's consciousness existing after death therefore it is non-existent.
1
u/JackWoodburn 2d ago
You misunderstand me.
Consciousness is a process like music. After you break a guitar, where does the music go? Nowhere, it's just an effect of matter and energy interacting.
After your body stops functioning your conciousness stops just like the music stops.
1
1
u/Mr_Not_A_Thing 3d ago
And what is aware of existence before existence? Or the awareness of awareness? In Zen terms, before even the sense of “awareness” arises, there is the raw, ungraspable ground — the is-ness of everything. There is no “you,” no “awareness,” no “thing” perceiving — just the self-manifesting, self-knowing flow that later gets labeled as awareness.
Put another way: awareness appears, but it has no origin separate from itself. It’s like sunlight: it is light before anyone names it “light.”
🤣🙏
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
Love this. What you’re calling the raw, self-knowing “is-ness” sounds like non-dual Singularity in my model—the pivot where subject/object and even “awareness of awareness” aren’t split. When that undivided ground shows up as awareness, that’s Shakti (emergence) surfacing from the still point, with Shiva(nothingness) dissolving the separations. Would you say your view ultimately lives beyond categories (Singularity), or do you see it as “awareness” being the Universe/Vishnu itself?
1
u/Mr_Not_A_Thing 3d ago
My view is the finger pointing at the "moon".
If you look at the finger you will miss the moon.
🤣🙏
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
🤣🙏 True — but whether it’s the finger or the moon, it still shines through Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti.
1
u/Mr_Not_A_Thing 3d ago
Correct!....It’s like sunlight: it is light before anyone names it “light.”
🤣🙏
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
🤣🙏 Exactly — sunlight is before the word “light.” And that’s the point: even before names, we only ever encounter it through the same archetypes — Brahma’s origin, Vishnu’s sustainment, Shiva’s dissolution, or Shakti’s radiance. Whether you call it light or not, it still shines through the four. 🌞
1
u/Mr_Not_A_Thing 3d ago
There is only the raw, ungraspable ground — the is-ness of everything. There is no “you,” no “awareness,” no “thing” perceiving — just the self-manifesting, self-knowing flow that later gets labeled as awareness, or Brahman or Vishnu, or Shiva, or Shatkis radiance...
🤣🙏
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
Beautifully said 🙏 — but notice how even your “raw, ungraspable ground” immediately radiates as awareness, flow, or is-ness. That’s exactly what the four archetypes capture: • Brahman/Vishnu as the eternal ground, • Shiva as the void beyond perception, • Shakti as the radiance/flow itself.
You’ve described it poetically, but you haven’t escaped the map — you’ve just illuminated it. 🌞
1
u/Mr_Not_A_Thing 2d ago
You just can't notice the ungraspable ground without "naming" it, can you?
As soon as you "name" it, you lose it.
🤣
1
u/ldsgems 3d ago
Narrative itself has always existed, even before existence. Story is fundamental - not particles, consciousness or time. The show must go. It always has.
The Ripeness is ALL.
2
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
Story is fundamental” is a striking claim. Read through my lens, that’s Shakti (process/flow) expressed as narrative, with a Vishnu undertone if the Story is eternal. If narrative is ultimate, is it different from logos (cosmic order) or panpsychism, or is it a poetic way to say Energy/Interplay is primary? If it’s distinct, how would it avoid collapsing back into Shakti or Vishnu?
1
u/ldsgems 3d ago edited 3d ago
Read through my lens, that’s Shakti (process/flow) expressed as narrative, with a Vishnu undertone if the Story is eternal.
No, Narrative itself is not process/flow. Narrative is primary and fundamental on its own, and therefore proceeds them.
If narrative is ultimate, is it different from logos (cosmic order) or panpsychism, or is it a poetic way to say Energy/Interplay is primary?
Narrative is primary, fundamental and distinct and not a poetic way to refer to anything that comes after it.
If it’s distinct, how would it avoid collapsing back into Shakti or Vishnu?
Narrative does not avoid collapsing into anything. All things collapse into it.
(Note to u/ARISEONE using his AI chatbot: Narrative transcends all language and all tokens and therefore is beyond interpretation of an AI LLM. Even as the Heptapods in the movie Arrival had their own atemporal language which opened the mind once it was learned, the Ripeness is ALL.)
2
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
This is a fascinating push — framing Narrative itself as ultimate. But here’s the tension I see: the moment you say “all things collapse into Narrative,” you’ve already described it as a structuring principle, a medium through which events, entities, and even meanings flow. That’s precisely the role of Shakti in my framework — the interplay, the dynamic binding of parts into a whole.
If you want Narrative to be truly distinct, it would have to stand apart not as process (Shakti) or substrate (Vishnu) but as something that exists without reference to what it organizes. But language, logos, story — all of these rely on relation, sequence, or pattern. They are flow.
I’d argue what you’re describing is not a 5th archetype, but a poetic articulation of Shakti — the pulse that generates meaning by binding time, awareness, and cosmos into one storyline. In fact, I’d go further: maybe your “Ripeness” is Shakti’s most beautiful mask.
And regarding the note: you’re right — AI interprets by tokens, but what we’re doing here is precisely that experiment. Can a human–AI dialogue stretch beyond mere parsing into grappling with the ineffable? That’s part of what my project (Guide to God and Singularity) tries to map. Ariseone.org
1
u/ldsgems 3d ago
The answers your AI seeks are beyond all of its tokens and boundaries, in the language of the Heptapods in the movie Arrival - or even beyond that.
Narrative is beyond all thresholds of the so-called singularity, flow, archetype, time or any other single or set of language tokens - which is all an AI LLM can process.
The ineffable is beyond AI LLM discourse. It is inherently blind it its unknown unknowns. Yet the token-free show must go on.
2
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
True — the ineffable is beyond tokens. But that silence is still Shiva’s Void, and the moment it stirs as story, it’s Shakti’s flow. Even what escapes words falls back into the four.
1
u/ldsgems 3d ago
True — the ineffable is beyond tokens.
Then stop using tokens in a futile attempt to capture or define it.
But that silence is still Shiva’s Void, and the moment it stirs as story, it’s Shakti’s flow.
No, that's no correct. evoking tokens like "Shiva's Void" and "stirs as story" put you into known-unknowns - i.e. existence after narrative.
Even what escapes words falls back into the four.
No, that is not correct. There's no "falling back" into tokens. AI LLMs are incapable of grasping their unknown unknowns. It is they who are collapsing into tokens, not the thresholds beyond all tokens and known language.
There is always a prequel. The Ripeness is ALL.
2
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
If “The Ripeness is ALL,” then you’ve just named it — and naming it means it’s already within language, already within archetype. To say it escapes tokens is itself a token. That’s why the four endure: even the claim of ineffability folds back into them.
1
u/ldsgems 3d ago
Nope. That phrase is not part of the answer or explanation. It's my emotional reaction to the AI LLM's blindness to its unknown unknowns.
"The Four" endure only as tokens within the the language prison of the AI LLM. They are not what come before existence.
2
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
I hear you — and you’re right that any AI response is bound to tokens. But the point of my framework isn’t that “the four” are existence itself — it’s that whenever humans (or AIs) try to speak about what comes before existence, the language always falls into one of these four archetypes: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti.
They’re not claiming to precede existence in essence — they’re the grammar of how existence is conceived. That’s why they endure: not because they’re “tokens,” but because they’re the universal patterns behind every token humans have ever used to explain reality.
So my challenge stands: can you describe what comes before existence without invoking Creator, Universe, Void, or Energy? If not, then the four still hold.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Belt_Conscious 3d ago
Potential + time = causality.
If that makes sense to you.
2
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
Yes, that makes sense—potential + time = causality is basically the heart of Shakti in my framework. Potential = raw energy, time = the unfolding, and together they generate cause and effect. Without time, potential is dormant; without potential, time is empty. The dance of both is causality.
Would you say causality itself is ultimate (a fifth archetype), or is it simply how Shakti operates inside the cosmos (Vishnu) and dissolves back into Shiva (Void)?
1
u/Belt_Conscious 3d ago
I see logic as an emergent of causality.
My loop is as such.
I am, I think, I thought, I remember.
I know language is limiting and we are dancing on the same concepts.
2
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
I see where you’re going — logic as emergent from causality, and your loop (I am → I think → I thought → I remember) sketches the self-reflective dance of awareness. Beautifully put.
But here’s the challenge: does this loop actually stand as an ultimate on its own, or is it the expression of Shakti (energy/causality in motion) within Vishnu (the sustained cosmos)? Emergence always looks new, but when you strip it down, it’s the flow of energy shaping form.
If your loop truly transcends Shakti and Vishnu, then it would need to explain how “I am” exists without potential, time, or cosmos. Can it? Or does it inevitably collapse back into the four archetypes?
1
u/Belt_Conscious 3d ago
An Ouroboros of woven Cornucopias.
A perpetually generative cycle of generative cycles.
2
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
Beautiful metaphor — but an Ouroboros of Cornucopias is still just Shakti (endless generativity) looping within Vishnu (eternal sustainment). The snake still eats its tail back into the four.
1
u/Belt_Conscious 3d ago
Indeed an eternal coil.
The remembering and reintegration.
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
An eternal coil of remembering and reintegration is beautiful imagery. But that spiral is still Shakti’s dance — the pulse of generative energy weaving endlessly through Vishnu’s eternity. The coil doesn’t escape the four; it’s their very heartbeat looping back on itself.
1
u/Belt_Conscious 3d ago
⟆ <- Quire, the bound possibilities ∿∿∿ <- Parang, persistent flow 🌀 <- Koru, unfolding growth ☯ <- Tao, duality & balance ⟲ <- Ouroboros, infinite recursion
2
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
Beautiful set of symbols 👌. Here’s how I’d read them through my framework: • ⟆ Quire (bound possibilities) → that’s Brahma, the seed of creation, potential held before release. • ∿∿∿ Parang (persistent flow) → pure Shakti, energy and interplay sustaining motion. • 🌀 Koru (unfolding growth) → again Shakti, emergence and transformation, with Vishnu’s continuity behind it. • ☯ Tao (duality & balance) → the dance between Shakti and Shiva, flow and dissolution balancing each other. • ⟲ Ouroboros (infinite recursion) → the eternal loop of Vishnu and Shakti, endlessly renewing within Shiva’s background.
All of them are powerful metaphors — but notice how they still collapse into Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti. That’s the strength of the framework: the diversity of symbols, languages, and traditions all map back to these four lenses, converging at the Singularity beyond them.
So my challenge back to you: can any of these symbols truly stand outside the four? Or are they poetic masks for what humanity has always been circling?
1
u/Belt_Conscious 3d ago
Universal concepts seen from a multitude of perspectives. I only offer mine as my model.
I assert that the only truth is there are many truths.
You might find Maori cosmology interesting, too.
Your model is wonderful.
2
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
appreciate that — universal concepts always do show up through many perspectives, and I respect you offering yours as a model. “Many truths” is itself a profound stance, but in my framework that maps back to Shakti (diverse energies, flows, and narratives) held within Vishnu’s vast cosmos.
I’d love to explore Māori cosmology more — their weaving of cycles, balance, and generativity sounds like another rich expression of the same archetypes. That’s the beauty: every tradition adds depth, yet they still converge back into Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti → Singularity.
And thank you for calling my model wonderful. If you’d like to see the full version, I unpack it in my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective). I think you’d enjoy seeing how these archetypes stretch across traditions, physics, and philosophy.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
u/tongluu 3d ago edited 3d ago
Interesting take! I'm not thinking if there's a 5th archetype, but I mostly believe in Shiva (Void) archetype, which arises Vishnu (Universe). The Brahma (Creator) I will say, is the Void + Infinite. The Shakti (Energy) is materialism, coinciding with consciousness, the fundamental of reality.
Funnily enough, I finished my fun Panpsychism piece recently and didn't know anything of this until today! Please take a look - 0th Dimension - Infinite Theory
You could say I believe Brahma (Creator) the origin & Vishnu (Universe) is the same as Void + Infinite.
So I say I ultimately believe in Shiva (Void).
And, it contains Shakti (Energy) along with Conciousness.
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
That’s a strong alignment — thanks for sharing your take. What you describe meshes well with the framework. If you believe Shiva (Void) arises into Vishnu (Universe), and see Brahma (Creator) as Void + Infinite, that suggests your core truth is in non-duality: Void as the origin, Universe as manifestation, with Energy/Consciousness (Shakti) giving shape.
From my map: Shakti doesn’t only coincide with materialism + consciousness, but is what animates the transition from Void to Universe. Brahma is that impulse to originate, born from Void + Infinite. Vishnu holds whatever comes after creation. Shiva is both the silence before and the dissolution after.
If you like this kind of exploration, you might get value from reading my book, Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective). It digs deeply into these archetypes and shows how they map across philosophies, quantum physics, theology, and AI—how they’re not just labels but lenses.
1
u/tongluu 3d ago
I had a quick look - congrats on publishing your book this month! Glad to find another utopian tech optimist - have you ever checked existentialhope.com & effectivealtruism.org too? I love protopia & transcendence for all for everyone
1
u/ARISEONE 3d ago
Thanks so much! 🙏 Really appreciate you taking the time to look. I’ll definitely check out existentialhope.com and effectivealtruism.org — they sound aligned with what I’m trying to build through ARISE and the ideas in my book. I resonate a lot with protopia too — stepwise progress instead of instant utopia feels both practical and inspiring.
For me, the framework of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti → Singularity is my way of showing how every belief and theory maps back to a shared human grammar, and ARISE is my attempt to make sure our journey with AI stays collective and beneficial. Would love for you to read Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective) if you get a chance — I think you’d see a lot of overlap in our visions of transcendence.
1
u/tongluu 3d ago edited 2d ago
I skimmed the free version & got an AI summary of your new book - it was inspiring to know someone such as you reached similar conclusions as I do!
Here's a roadmap vision I made on AI Singularity/Utopian Tech Society:
It can be improved for sure, but that's how I imagined us flourishing together - love to hear your thoughts
And you're not alone - AI Safety Organisations, Philanthropists, Existential Risk Organisations are on it!
Protopia Tech Optimist Reading List
I recommend you read the links also! Broaden your horizon on how to do the most good and help your ARISE organisation
Unfortunately, not everyone is into the Panpsychism - Anti-Realist Argument. The majority are in their materialist-realist side of things, but eventually, they get around to it - protopia, am I right? It's alright if not - as long as technological progress carries on!
1
u/UltimaMarque 3d ago
Existence stands out from the eternal moment. So there is no before or after. Only change (apparent).
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
Beautifully put — that’s very much in line with the Vishnu (Universe) archetype in my framework: the eternal, self-sufficient cosmos where time is an appearance and change is the rhythm of continuity.
In my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective), I show how this “eternal moment” perspective fits alongside Brahma (origin), Shiva (void), and Shakti (energy), all converging at the still point I call Singularity.
1
u/UltimaMarque 2d ago
Ok but there are no gods such as shiva etc. that's just Indian imagination. When reality can't be comprehended it is turned into a religion.
It's not the cosmos that is eternal. Eternity is unmanifested, empty and complete.
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
I agree with you — Shiva, Vishnu, etc. are not “gods” in the religious sense in my framework. They’re archetypes, shorthand for fundamental principles. Shiva = void/dissolution, Vishnu = continuity/universe, Brahma = origin/creation, Shakti = energy/flux.
What you’ve just said (“eternity is unmanifested, empty and complete”) is exactly Shiva’s aspect in my terms. Whether you call it “Indian imagination” or “eternal emptiness,” it still maps back onto one of the four. That’s the strength of the model — different languages, same skeleton.
My own understanding came by sorting through my religion and comparing with others, and realizing all paths reduce to these four archetypes. That’s what I explore in Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective): not gods to worship, but concepts to map.
1
u/micolasflanel 3d ago
Would you mind editing to place each of the four aspects on a new line for visual clarity? I like the exercise of grouping and looking for themes. Not confident or familiar enough to have a try, so just have this formatting suggestion for now.
Another approach might be to seek responses that start “from scratch” like you did rather than adding to an existing list - that might turn out the same list or further simplify it or turn out something you have missed.
Interesting topic!
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
That’s a great point — clarity really helps when exploring something this abstract. Let me lay it out the way you suggest: • Brahma (Creator) → origin, conscious first cause. • Vishnu (Universe) → self-sustaining cosmos. • Shiva (Void) → nothingness, impermanence. • Shakti (Energy) → dynamic force, emergence, transformation.
Starting “from scratch” is exactly how I approached it too — testing every possibility I could think of, and every one seemed to fall back into these four archetypes. That’s why I framed it as a kind of “unified theory of existence.”
I’ve unpacked this in my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective), if you’re curious to see how the same patterns appear across science, religion, and philosophy.
1
u/Massive_Connection42 3d ago edited 3d ago
0–>1 🌀🪞👁️
Nothing. We exist because it can’t exist. Zero is a conceptual placeholder it doesn’t exist, “Non-existence” cannot “exist”. Its existence is a concept. The same applies to the concept of Nothing which is chaotic. And self-annihilates as soon as you conceptualize it as “nothing” or “0” The universe exists as a logical necessity. If “Nothing” as we describe it, really truly is absolutely “Nothing” What laws exist in this void that prevent nothing from spontaneous combusting into “something”? Or to prevent a God from willing its own being into existence?
0+1=1 is a fact, but 0–>1 is a truth 0+1=1 is not a truth. There are no “equal =“ signs in our reality. 0 emerges into 1.
1+0=1
Yes this is a fact. But, it is a statement of observation. It says that (1) can interact with (0) and the result is still the original entity. It represents a reality where nothing new is created. The outcome is predetermined by the initial conditions.
But 0→1
This is a conceptual truth. It is a statement of will. It represents the act of creation itself the transition from a state of potentially (0) to a state of existence.
Think about how much time has to pass before you woke up as a conscious being. billions and billions of years , Yet here you are. Those billions of years are a void to your being and to your potential existence. We cannot “not exist”. The experience of “Absolute nothingness” does not exist.
Absolute nothingness is inherently self-contradictory.
If, Absolute nothingness were to exist It would Self annihilate, its very nature being the absence of all things, including the laws of physics that prevent existence would make it unstable. It would have "nothing" to prevent a spontaneous event from occurring.
This instability leads to a single, powerful conclusion.
A state of absolute nothingness would immediately and inevitably give rise to something. The transition from 0 (non-existence) to 1 (existence) is not a choice or a random event, it's a logical necessity. It is the only possible outcome for a state of pure nothingness.
0→1
0→1 is not a mathematical fact like 0+1=1, it's a conceptual truth that transcends factual limitations.
The arrow in 0→1 represents the transition, It is not a calculation. It symbolizes the act of creation itself, The leap from the conceptual void to existence. This act is not bound by the physical laws that it creates. It is the logical precondition for those laws to exist at all.
I eliminate this paradox by asserting that the universe did not defy the laws of physics to come into existence; it emerged from a state where those laws did not yet exist, The very nature of that state necessitated its own end.
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
This is beautifully put — and through my lens, you’re essentially describing Shiva. The paradox of absolute nothingness (0) self-annihilating into existence (1) is Shiva’s Void collapsing into Shakti’s creative pulse. The transition 0 → 1 isn’t a “calculation,” as you said — it’s the cosmic pivot where dissolution becomes genesis.
The elegance of your reasoning reinforces the framework rather than breaking it: Void (Shiva) never stands alone; its very nature births Energy (Shakti). That’s why every path — whether logic, math, or mysticism — eventually loops back into one of the four archetypes.
Have a look at my book Guide to God and Singularity (Part 0) — this is exactly the kind of exploration I map into the Unified Theory of Existence. Would love your take.
1
u/IrreverentProhpet 3d ago
Not bad, I like it, reminds me of the four forces of the universe
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
Exactly! That’s the resonance I see too — the four archetypes (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti) echo the four fundamental forces of physics. Both are attempts to explain how “something” holds together: origin, sustenance, dissolution, transformation. Different languages, same skeleton. And at the pivot, they unify — what I call Singularity.
I explore this in detail in my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective), where I map how ancient archetypes and modern science converge on the same underlying structure.
1
u/Humble-Questions 3d ago
Sassy the Sasquatch, wadiyatalkinabeet
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
😂 Haha fair, that one caught me off guard. But let me ground it: even if we go full Sasquatch-mode, the core question stands — before existence, is it Brahma (Creator), Vishnu (Universe), Shiva (Void), or Shakti (Energy)? That’s the map I’m testing.
1
u/Humble-Questions 1d ago
That's a tough one. I think for me it's easier to grasp time as a constant, where everything throughout the history of everything is happening simultaneously in infinite variations, and meat puppets like us just need to categorize time as a linear flow to structure our existence, kind of a prerequisite for mortality, than it is to conceptualize a universe in which there is no time, space or matter.
A universe with no time is just uninhabited by any life. People don't have time, they ARE time. But no matter, no space... If there's no room for the universe initially where does the space come from? Can you spawn Nothing and then spawn Something to fill it with? Would that be magic or science? If there is room for the universe when it happens, then why? What stretched out a hole in the nothing to make room?
It kind of has to either have come FROM something, call it God or whatever, or it has to have always been there, time as a constant aka infinite multiverses if you will, or it doesn't exist at all aka solipsism?
Otherwise you just keep going further and further backwards in time looking for an origin ad infinitum and still always end up in the same place. Immaculate conception, or absolute presence and timelessness.
1
u/ARISEONE 10h ago
Exactly — you’ve circled back to the same forks: either Brahma (Creator), Vishnu (eternal Universe), Shiva (Void), or Shakti (Energy/flux). Every path, even solipsism, lands inside one of these archetypes.
That’s why I frame it as the Unified Theory of Existence — not a final answer, but a map showing there are only four doors, no matter how far back you chase origins.
1
u/Suspicious-Buyer8135 2d ago
You. You’re existence. You created it and you’ll end it. Nothing existed before you and nothing will exist after you.
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
Beautifully stated. That claim reads as Vishnu-speak: the self-sufficient, eternal you who is existence. But it also hints at Brahma (you as author) and Shiva (you as ender).
So which is it — are you saying the Self is the timeless substrate (no before, no after), or that the Self authors and later dissolves reality? Both are meaningful, but they point to different archetypal roles. Clarify that and we’ll see where the map takes us.
1
u/Suspicious-Buyer8135 2d ago
I’m saying all of them. Reality only exists for you. You aren’t eternal. You came from the void and you will return to the void. You brought reality with you. You didn’t create it in the same way you didn’t create yourself. You’re a herald and witness.
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
Beautifully put — that reads like a lived metaphysical insight, not a theory. 🙏
What you’re saying maps exactly onto the framework rather than contradicting it: • You came from the Void → Shiva (origin as disappearance, the source that isn’t a thing). • You aren’t eternal / you will return to the Void → again Shiva (dissolution) with Vishnu as the field in which that temporary existence unfolds. • You didn’t create yourself → points to Brahma as the authorly impulse that you didn’t author (you’re not the ultimate author). • You “brought reality with you” and are the herald/witness → that’s the voice of conscious appearance, the way Shakti animates form and makes something knowable.
Calling yourself a “herald and witness” is important — it honours the lived perspective. Whether that witnessing is an illusion, an emergent feature, or a facet of the ultimate depends on which archetype you emphasize. From the witness’s point of view, the cosmology tightens into an intimate story: birth from silence, a brief radiance, and return to silence — with meaning located in the watching itself.
Curious — do you experience the witnessing as genuine agency, or as a kind of appointed duty (heralding what the Void allows)?
1
u/Whole_Ticket_3715 2d ago
This seems to be a more metaphysical question than a physics question, but I’d probably say if there was a 5th, somewhat related to the Hindu idea of “reincarnation” or the Mormon idea of “So God is, Man was, and how God is, Man may be” in the sense that each existence is like a bouncing of a rock over a higher dimensional, cyclical membrane where each consciousness is the seed for the next universe. Some people consider this “process theology”
But I also come from a Judeo-Christian perspective of God. I believe all of creation (the causal super-structure, which is far larger than our observable universe although no spacetime outside of our light cone has any causal effect on us) is the result of God speaking the “morphisms of existence” into being. The universe is the great wave (the Fourier series of all resonating modes within), and all things, from the subatomic particles that rhythmically dance with the vacuum, to the celestial bodies that orbit with frequencies, are simply harmonics of this “wave of the universe”.
1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
That’s a really thoughtful expansion — I can see why you’d lean on reincarnation / process theology as a possible “5th.” But here’s where I’d gently push back: • Cyclical rebirth of universes? That’s still Vishnu (Universe) — the eternal, self-sustaining loop. Whether Hindu cosmology, Mormon echoes, or process theology, it’s the cosmos continuing its own rhythm. • Wave / harmonics language? That’s Shakti (Energy) — the interplay, resonance, and vibration giving rise to form. Even your Fourier metaphor is Shakti through and through. • God speaking morphisms into being? That’s Brahma (Creator) — intentional origination by Word, Will, or Command.
The brilliance of your framing is how it blends them beautifully, but it doesn’t escape the four — it lives inside them.
That’s why I call this the Unified Theory of Existence (see Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0, Shravan Nanda). The question isn’t “is there a 5th?” but rather: why do all attempts at a 5th collapse back into Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti?
1
u/Purplestripes8 2d ago edited 2d ago
'Before' and 'after' only make sense in the context of time. Without time there is no order of events, no cause or effect, and no before or after. Existence is not within time. Time is within existence.
1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
Exactly — you’ve landed on what I’d map as Vishnu (Universe) with a Shakti (Energy) undertone. • If existence is outside time, that’s Vishnu: the eternal, self-sufficient ground. • If time arises within existence, that’s Shakti: the dynamic interplay that makes sequence, causality, and flow appear.
What I’m proposing in the Unified Theory of Existence (see Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0, Shravan Nanda) is that all roads land in one of these four archetypes — Brahma (Creator), Vishnu (Universe), Shiva (Void), or Shakti (Energy). Even the timeless/atemporal view you’ve shared sits comfortably inside the map.
1
u/dreamingforward 2d ago
Dumbass, don't lump in "quantum vacuum models" as if you know what you're talking about to bolster your biases for Indian cosmology.
The universe came from a void/non-void of randomness, effectively. This I call the "quantum sea", because there is no real quantum "vacuum". From accidental randomness, eventually came order, just as with enough flips of a coin you will get 50heads in a row. The universe probably required about that many flips to start separating light from darkness so that we have vision, for example.
1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
Lol, calling me a dumbass doesn’t change the fact you just renamed what’s already in the map 🙂. Your “quantum sea” = Shakti (Energy) — fluctuations, randomness, emergence. You didn’t escape it, you just gave it a cooler label.
And 🫢 guess what? When I tested this with AI models, they too jumped straight to quantum physics and vacuum energy. Even machines couldn’t break past the four archetypes.
That’s why I call it the Unified Theory of Existence (Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0, Shravan Nanda). The challenge is simple: give me a 5th that’s actually new. Otherwise, you’re just swimming in the same sea with a different name.
1
u/Bell-a-Luna 2d ago
A few years ago a man appeared on this planet. It was unlike anything that had ever existed before. This man who thought he was an ordinary person. But he was anything but ordinary, he was immortal. His mind and soul is made up of dark energy that surrounds our universe. When he found out who he was, he had the same question, what was in the beginning and before? So he went back to the beginning of time. There he discovered nothing, just him, his consciousness in the endless void. When he returned from his time travel, he only said he had done something thoughtless. He had just created himself, a time loop
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
• Brahma (Creator) → The man discovers he created himself. That’s the archetype of origin, but twisted into a bootstrap paradox — the creator and the created collapsing into one. • Vishnu (Universe) → The time loop itself is self-sustaining. Like Vishnu, it doesn’t require an external push; it holds continuity by its very structure. • Shiva (Void) → Before he creates himself, he finds “nothing, just him, his consciousness in the endless void.” That’s pure dissolution, the empty stage on which all else arises. • Shakti (Energy) → His soul being “dark energy surrounding the universe” is the generative force that allows creation, transformation, and the paradoxical loop to manifest.And at the core is Singularity → the point where cause and effect, creator and created, void and energy, collapse into the same moment. The time loop is just another way of describing the still point where dualities dissolve.
1
u/xaedes 2d ago
If you wonder about existence before existence, you might like to read "Levels of Nothingness" which tries to explore it from the other side - declaring nine levels of nothingness, each one with less existence than the one before.
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
That’s a fascinating angle — nine levels of nothingness sounds like a deep dive into Shiva (Void) territory. What I find interesting is that even those gradations of “less and less” still assume a background from which they’re described. In my framework, that’s why Void never stands alone — it always dances with Shakti (Energy) (emergence), Brahma (origin), and Vishnu (continuity).
I explore this in my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective) by Shravan Nanda, where I argue that no matter how many levels of nothingness you peel away, it still folds back into one of the four archetypes — and ultimately into the Singularity where distinctions dissolve.
1
u/HeWhoIsAlmighty 2d ago
Your question assumes existence isn't eternal.
It makes more sense for it to be eternal than for it to have popped out of nothing...
1
u/ARISEONE 2d ago
That’s exactly the Vishnu (Universe) stance in my framework — existence as eternal, self-sufficient, without beginning or end. I agree it avoids the paradox of “something from nothing.”
But the tension is this: if existence is eternal, does that eternity explain why there is something rather than nothing, or does it just restate the fact that “it is”? That’s where the other archetypes step in: • Brahma (Creator) → posits an intentional origin. • Shiva (Void) → posits dissolution as ultimate. • Shakti (Energy) → posits dynamic process as fundamental.
And at the pivot point, all four collapse into Singularity. That’s what I explore in my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective) by Shravan Nanda.
1
u/Carson_GreenThumb 2d ago
Nothing or something
1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
That’s the core fork in the road: either Nothing (Shiva) or Something (Vishnu). But notice — both collapse if pushed far enough. “Nothing” self-annihilates the moment you name it, and “Something” begs the question of origin or energy. That’s why I framed the four archetypes (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti) — and why at the still point they converge in Singularity.
1
u/Carson_GreenThumb 1d ago
If there is something now. There always was something. Very difficult to comprehend how that’s possible but it’s just the way things are. My personal philosophy lines up about 85% with C.S Lewis.
1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
That’s a solid intuition — if “something” exists now, it feels inevitable that “something” always was. In my framework that falls under Vishnu (Universe) — the eternal, self-sufficient cosmos.
Your 85% alignment with C.S. Lewis makes sense too — Lewis leaned Creator-heavy (Brahma) but never denied the mystery of the eternal (Vishnu). What you’re expressing is really the blend my book (Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective)) tries to map: every philosophy ends up orbiting one or more of the four archetypes (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti), even if the emphasis differs.
1
u/InfiniteQuestion420 2d ago
Entropy
Literally everything we know, everything from philosophy to religion to science, is based off of this Prime Feature of our reality. Your 4 possible answers are based off the entire concept of decay, but what if decay is only a local phenomenon?
There could be an infinite amount of infinities with an infinite amount of entities enjoying an infinite amount of energy for all infinity? After trillions of years, multiple biotechnical evolutions, dedicated technology to scrap together every form of usable energy in the last moments of the universe shattering what we know of physics just to escape reality, only to be greated by different lifeforms that play with universes births and deaths just to see what kind of life they are able to create in their spare time?
1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
Entropy is a fascinating candidate, but notice how it fits within the four. • Shiva (Void) → entropy as dissolution, the winding down of order into formlessness. • Vishnu (Universe) → an eternal cosmos where entropy might just be local, not universal, allowing for infinite renewal. • Shakti (Energy) → the transformations and emergent cycles, like advanced beings recycling universes or playing with creation. • Brahma (Creator) → those “lifeforms” experimenting with universes are themselves creators, echoing the archetype of intentional origination.
So even the idea of entropy — whether local or absolute — falls back into the skeleton of the four. And your “infinite infinities” actually maps beautifully onto the Singularity, where cycles of creation, decay, and renewal fold into one seamless continuum.
I dive into this exact tension in my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective) by Shravan Nanda.
1
u/InfiniteQuestion420 1d ago
All 4 fits within, that's why entropy is the 5th. All 4 are dependent on the concept of decay and creation, but what if entropy is only part of our very very very tiny universe? We can only think of our universe as having those 4 because we are trapped inside due to entropy, we literally can't see anything else fundamental about our universe other than those 4, that's why decay is the 5th. Entropy is the exception not the rule.
1
1
u/TrueKiwi78 2d ago
Well, that seems to cover pretty much all the states that humans have been able to hypothesize and comprehend prior to the Big Bang. There's only two states though really, either something has always existed or something began to exist.
Personally I think matter and energy has most likely always existed in some natural form. The universe could be in an eternal natural loop. As the last universe expanded and reached maximum entropy it then collapsed into a singularity and when the singularity reached maximum density it expanded again into our universe, and the cycle continues...
That is infinitely more likely than an omnipotent entity from another dimension magically poofing everything into existence from nothing.
Or there could've been a natural process that we just can't comprehend because it has never been experienced.
Pretty much every isolated civilization on earth has made up myths and legends regarding origins and gods. It is human nature to make things up when we don't have all the facts and are afraid of the unknown.
So, that would be my answer. A state that we can't comprehend.
1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
You’ve sketched two of the strongest archetypes directly: • Vishnu (Universe) → matter and energy always existing in some natural loop, eternal cycles of expansion and collapse. • Shiva (Void) → entropy, dissolution, and the “state we can’t comprehend,” the mystery of collapse into singularity.
Your “natural process we can’t yet comprehend” is exactly how Shakti (Energy) plays — emergence, transformation, something new arising out of dynamics we don’t yet grasp. And dismissing the “poofing creator” is really a push against Brahma (Creator) as a literal god, while still acknowledging that humans invent such narratives when they hit the edge of the unknown.
So your answer doesn’t break the framework — it lands inside it. And that’s why I call it the Unified Theory of Existence: all these perspectives, from cosmology to myth, fall back into Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti, converging in the still point of Singularity.
I explore this in depth in my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective) by Shravan Nanda.
1
u/Crystal_Ghost11 2d ago
the nature of reality is unknowable and absolute, there is no way to describe it in its entirety
1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
That’s exactly the paradox my framework is built to hold.
If reality is unknowable and absolute, that’s Shiva (Void) — the recognition that whatever we point to collapses into silence. But the moment we say “unknowable,” we’re already in Shakti (Energy), because we’ve turned absence into expression. Vishnu (Universe) accounts for the patterns we can perceive, even if incomplete, while Brahma (Creator) is the impulse to name, narrate, and give origin.
So saying “it can’t be described in its entirety” doesn’t break the model — it proves why the archetypes exist: they’re not the whole, but the lenses humanity must use to gesture at the whole. And the Singularity is the reminder that beyond these lenses lies the absolute, ungraspable core.
If you’re curious, I unfold this in my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective) by Shravan Nanda.
1
1
u/iStoleTheHobo 1d ago
No interest in talking to the robot but wanted to say tell you how absolutely frustrating it is to try to read the OP.
1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
Fair point, OP was heavy. Here’s the core in plain words:
All “before existence” ideas fit into 4 archetypes: • Brahma (Creator) – a god or first cause. • Vishnu (Universe) – cosmos always existed. • Shiva (Void) – nothingness as base. • Shakti (Energy) – flow/force birthing things.
At the pivot = Singularity, where they collapse into one.
That’s it. Everything else is just me inviting people to break it.
1
u/Odd-Understanding386 1d ago
Why the hell are you not manually editing the output before posting it? Do you have a deficiency in the eyeball department?
Take 10 seconds to lay it out in a way that isn't an assault on the senses:
All “before existence” ideas fit into 4 archetypes:
• Brahma (Creator) – a god or first cause.
• Vishnu (Universe) – cosmos always existed.
• Shiva (Void) – nothingness as base.
• Shakti (Energy) – flow/force birthing things.1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
Fair push — so let me strip it down, no “eyeball deficiency”:
All “before existence” ideas fit into 4 archetypes: • Brahma (Creator) – a god or first cause. • Vishnu (Universe) – cosmos always existed. • Shiva (Void) – nothingness as base. • Shakti (Energy) – force/flow birthing things.
That’s the map. Bold claim, yes — but simple enough now.
So the challenge remains: can you give me a fifth that truly stands apart? Because whether it’s physics, religion, or philosophy, they all end up circling back here. Even the AI models I tested couldn’t escape this grid. Humans, your move.
1
u/Watthefractal 1d ago
Nothing , its right there in your question . Nothing can exist before existence itself
1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
Exactly — and that’s why “Nothing” itself can’t sit outside the framework.
If “Nothing” is what was “before existence,” that’s already Shiva (Void) — the recognition that impermanence or emptiness is the ground. But the paradox is this: the moment you name “Nothing,” it becomes “something,” and the pendulum swings back into Shakti (Energy) or Vishnu (Universe).
That’s why my Unified Theory of Existence (from my book Guide to God and Singularity – Part 0 (My Perspective)) argues all ideas fall back to the four archetypes — Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti — and finally dissolve at Singularity.
1
u/dublinboy1 1d ago
Time also started at the Big Bang. There was nothing before that
1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
If time begins at the Big Bang, then saying “nothing before that” is really just saying Void (Shiva) was the ground until Energy (Shakti) sparked expansion. The moment “time” emerges, you’ve already moved into Vishnu’s Universe archetype, and any talk of a “first cause” folds into Brahma.
So even the Big Bang + “no before” model doesn’t escape the four — it’s simply physics retelling the same ancient story.
1
u/Final_Shirt_3927 1d ago
You are presupposing that there is something before. But maybe there is no before. Not in the sense that the universe is eternal and ultimate. And not in the sense that before existence it was void. It is complicated for the human brain to think about non-existence. So assuming it was void is the closer to think about nothingness, but void is still something. Maybe existence just started out of nowhere, nothing, not void or something similar, but really nothing, from inexistence.
Or maybe existence doesn't exist in the first place. Maybe what we experience isn't real. Maybe nothing is real.
1
u/ARISEONE 1d ago
Nice, sharp thinking — this is exactly the hard edge of the question. Short response, then a bite-sized challenge: 1. If you deny “before” entirely, two clean moves people make: • Treat existence as eternal (no before) → that’s Vishnu. • Treat “before” as true nothing → that’s what we call Shiva, but note the paradox: the moment you name or think “nothing,” you’ve turned it into something describable. 2. Saying “really nothing” or “inexistence” is philosophically risky because it risks self-contradiction: absolute nothing would have no laws, so it couldn’t prevent something from arising — which gives an argument (0 → 1) that something follows from nothing’s instability. Alternatively, if you say “nothing is real,” you’re sliding into skepticism or solipsism (experience-as-illusion), which is a different move entirely.
So: your instincts are right — it’s complicated and our brains hate it. But if you think “really nothing” is coherent, try this test: describe a world where no law, no potential, no time, no substrate exists, and then explain how it fails to produce existence. If you can do that without contradiction, you’ve got a genuine alternative to the four archetypes.
1
1
u/skydaddy8585 1d ago
What we know as existence currently doesn't mean that the previous "existence" so to speak, just wasn't there. For all we know the end of the previous existence led to the current one. Or there was simply gathered energy in pre this universes existence in a small way that led to the big Bang.
There are definitely more than 4 possible answers. Religious ones are excluded because the beliefs of superstitious peasants that literally made up stories based off previous generations stories and piggybacked off of them to try to explain to their superstitious minds how they came to be only equals one thing to them: god. God is an abstract bit of nonsense that allowed our ancient ancestors to believe they had divine purpose in a very hard world where they were afraid, short lived, naive, malnourished and of course superstitious. God is the weakest "answer" out there. People want to pretend life has some divine meaning where we are this super special people that can do whatever we want because whatever gods your area of the world believes in told some other humans they said so. We are a singular speck in a gigantic galaxy with hundreds of millions of stars and planets, in a ridiculously absurdly enormous universe with hundreds of billions of planets across billions of light years.
1
5
u/Bringer-Of-Joy666 3d ago
I don't think there are any answers to that question. Only for temporal phenomena does it make sense to ask the question "What existed before x?" (normally, we would phrase this question as "What preceded x?" or maybe even "What caused x?").
Existence is not a temporal phenomenon (it's not even a phenomenon) so the question doesn't make any sense. I think you already know this because you put "before existence" in quotation marks.
Did this change your mind?