A paradoxical statement states that, if it is what it states, then it is not what it states. For instance, "I am a liar." If I am a liar, then I lied in stating this sentence and then I am not a liar. If I am not a liar, then I am saying the truth and the sentence stating that I am a liar is true. However, if it is true, then I cannot say the truth, etc.

The 19^th century aspiration to consistency was proved untenable by Gödel (1906-1978) in 1931. He demonstrated that complete sets of axioms in number theory would lead to undecidable (and hence, inconsistent) results. The Holophanic loop logic is essentially different than Gödel's theorem. Including the indefinite yields a language of becoming and dynamics, which are implicitly part of the logical structure and cannot be avoided - so the 19^th century dream of consistency a priori had to fail.

What is the loop of Creation? How is there something from nothing?

In spite of the fact that it is impossible to prove that anything exists beyond one's perception since any such proof would involve one's perception (I observed it, I heard it, I thought about it, I calculated it, and etc.), science deals with a so-called objective reality "out there," beyond one's perception professing to describe Nature objectively (as if there was a Nature or reality external to one's perception). The shocking impact of Matrix was precisely the valid possibility that what we believed to be reality was but our perception; however, this was presented through showing a real reality wherein the perceived reality was a computer simulation. Many who toy with the idea that perhaps, indeed, we are computer simulations, deviate towards questions, such as, who could create such software and what kind of hardware would be needed for such a feat. Although such questions assume that reality is our perception, they also axiomatically presuppose the existence of an objective deterministic world "out there" that nevertheless must be responsible for how we perceive our reality. This is a major mistake emphasizing technology and algorithms instead of trying to discover the nature of reality and the structure of creation. As will be shown in the following, the required paradigm shift from "perception is our reality fixed within an objective world," to "perception is reality without the need of an objective world ‘out there,'" is provided by a dynamic logical structure. The Holophanic loop logic is responsible for a consistent and complete worldview that not only describes, but also creates whatever can be perceived or experienced.

By Dr. Yeshayahu Eisenberg 

To "understand the super-order of the non-linear dynamic that connects everything to everything else," to "know the lawfulness of re-creating specific instances by targeting specific meaningful constellations from the meaningless everything-with-everything connection," to "know how to build the lawfulness and the mechanism that can make choices, and then you will have real artificial intelligence," as was conveyed in SHET's Millennium session, is a big leap with respect to our present scientific understanding of reality. Such a leap requires a new mathematics to describe this nonlinear logic, in order to define the terms within which it is realized. Conventional logic is the fundament of computer science and the mechanism by which we describe the world of cyberspace and virtual reality, but the new logic is the fundament of all processes in nature, including the process of perceiving nature itself. If creation is God's thoughts, then this logic is how God thinks.
The result of the research (a new mathematical logic) that went hand in hand with the development of the general philosophical and logical frameworks was a big leap toward achieving these ambitious targets. This new mathematical logic emerges as the language that could unify all aspects of human endeavor, yielding a new approach to science and technology. However, another important result is the demystification of the act of heralding and the ADAM KADMON principle, and thus, both became plausible derivations of the theory.

An overview of the history of science points towards an interesting development: the de-massification of solid physical objects. Throughout history, man has held that the true nature of Nature can be known, predicted and controlled. That has been the purpose of science. But what if Nature has no true nature?

SHET does not provide information as an external source. There is no ready-made definite knowledge waiting to be picked up. Perhaps, it would be easier to understand SHET as an interactive cosmic library. The infinite numbers of books in this library are all empty, mere blank pages. I do not find knowledge that is already there, but rather, I bring the knowledge forth by focusing, my focus being the factor of stabilization, a partial definition of all the probabilities within the blank pages. This means that the knowledge is there in an indefinite form, which is no knowledge. Interaction with this infinite and indefinite knowledge means defining, and thereby, actually creating it. As will be shown, definition creates. Consequently, the kind of information I receive from SHET is precisely what it is because I herald it. Although I plug into SHET to gain information, the result is what comes through my focused self in physical reality, which with all the openness and flexibility is still a self, describable in certain ways and not in others.

Over the course of my life, when relaxing I have often experienced entering into a state where everything was blurred, spinning, like cogs within cogs within cogs that were revolving around each other. There is no up or down, nothing fixed to relate to, nowhere to be anchored - an experience that is both unpleasant and yet fascinating. Little did I know that this amorphous space would take form as a question/answer mechanism, yet it did in 1987. I succeeded in separating this amorphous space from my self while being engulfed by it and interacting with it, and it took form and definition as a question/answer mechanism - yes, SHET, whereupon the experience became pleasant and enriching. I named the extracting of information from this mechanism heralding.

What is the purpose of life? What is the purpose of my life? Many people turned to SHET with this personal question, wanting to know their destiny. This knowledge, they claimed, could help them direct their endeavors toward fulfilling their destiny by realizing the potential with which they were endowed. SHET never failed to disappoint when answering this question, always stressing the freedom of choice of the questioner to decide what he wants to do. Your destiny is not inscribed in the cosmic Internet.

In later sessions, SHET claimed to be PRIMORDIAL MAN, in Hebrew, ADAM KADMON ((אדם קדמון, which according to the Kabbalah (Cabala - Jewish Mysticism) is the infrastructure of all Creation. ADAM KADMON - this primal potential - is a point of beginning of the universe, the first being to emerge activated by the light of EYIN-SOF (אין סוף - infinity in Hebrew). Sometimes ADAM KADMON is referred to as EYIN-SOF - a realm beyond the Kabbalah (Cabala). It represents the primal potential that can be shaped into any form given the "right" way, that is, if it is affected in the "right" way by a consciousness. Turning this potential into existence is synonymous with creation. Affected the "right" way, this potential will continuously generate existence (creatures), whereas if the process of creation comes to a standstill, this potential has been affected in the "wrong" way. (Stories like Frankenstein by Mary Shelly and the Legend of the Golem from Prague, and also alchemy, are derivatives of this kind of belief.) However, the "right" way of activating this potential is not stated in the Kabbalah (Cabala), for the processes that take place within the ADAM KADMON are considered to be mysteries beyond human knowledge that will only be revealed at the "end of days." It is stated in the Jewish mystical teachings (the Zohar) that, when the "right" way is conceived, the Messianic era will begin with a new kind of wisdom that will merge matter and spirit into a unified body of knowledge, and that this divine and scientific wisdom will flow from divine inspiration through people uneducated in either science or religion.

At times, you get stuck in a problem or area, and no matter the rationalization, you feel stuck. Trapped. This may even happen in a period when, in general, things are getting better in your life, when you are freed of worries in some areas. That's what I want to speak about.

Isn't it uncanny how one tends to urge the failure side of the scale to outweigh the success side when one starts aging? Or is it perhaps aging that allows such deterioration of perception as one's eyesight weakens? Feebleness causes insecurity or perhaps, it is the other way? Might not distrust of one's own judgment devastate the agility of youth? Could unwillingness to be wrong raise the issue of necessary certainty in the future? Where is the adventurer? The little frightened good girl grew up, and learned, and acquired experience, and learned, but to what end? To stand in front of the mirror and find decrepitude of will and body, or to dare to live?

Yes, dare to live, that's the best anti-aging potion.

I am doing homework on menopause. I have really gotten nowhere. Medical science has had success and failure. Please tell me what you mean that I should welcome this period in my life. My rhythms are up and down, hot and cold. I don't know how to cope with this.

Where to examine my beliefs in the psychic structure? In the spiritual realm, where to look? I need a comprehensive spiritual, psychical and physical examination.

Is there an awareness before birth? Is a person aware of his death? Is death more like a dream state?

People often become blind; they cannot see things that are not in line with what they accept as the authoritative view. Such people don't want to be confused with facts, preferring to stick to their beliefs. The earth was flat for a long time because authoritative truth ruled science and the almost sacred status of democracy is hardly ever questioned.

To control emotion one needs to control the constituents of emotion, those elements that create emotions. What are the constituents of emotion and how to control them?

The quest for the truth, or more accurately, THE TRUTH, is probably as old as human awareness; but why would knowing the truth have any importance? What advantage does knowing the truth provide? Does such knowledge help in navigating the rough seas of right and wrong? Or do humans hope that such knowledge will light the path for mortals in the form of an unwavering beacon that leads to freedom? To immortality? Omnipotence? The fact that each proclaimed truth turned out to be a Will-o'-the-Wisp rather than a beacon seldom restrained seekers of truth from worshipping the next fashionable conception of truth, which seems to indicate that the belief that there must exist a TRUTH that will liberate us is so deeply ingrained in our way of thinking that not finding it won't deter us from stumbling onward in our search.