X = matter or non-object.
I don't understand that.
Information can have meaning without matter.
Maybe. I don't know what information is or what kind of ontological reality it might have. There are deep questions there.
This is how a misunderstanding of reality can be created by mind.
Because somebody (who are you addressing?) in your opinion confuses information with matter?
Reality is comparable to self-configuration.
That sounds like a Christopher Langan slogan.
"Comparable" how? And how can something that isn't real "self-configure" (whatever that means) so as to become real?
Wisdom is information coming from a single source (reality). Meaningless information comes from many (objects).
What if reality is pluralistic and contains many things, all of which can be known? Why should we accept the monism that you are sneaking in there?
As for me, I don't know whether reality can be reduced to a single One. (That sounds like neoplatonism.) I'm more inclined to accept the plurality.
My belief was incorrect we create meaning, just as our minds contain a self-configuration of reality, which is self-configurating along with reality (psychologists are still unclear as to what the mind is).
The middle part of that just seems to be saying that reality changes over time, so that a correct understanding of the state of reality at particular points in time must change too.
Where the mind is not static and therefore not concept, it is self-configuring and therefore unbound.
Ok, mind (or its contents) change over time.
The SCSPL is intinsic as well as is spacetime due to structure S which distributes over S (self-distributive). Spacetime is thus transparent from within. Where objects in reality are s, possessing the structure of one that merges the concepts ans is self-dynamic and self-perceptual that is S. S is amenable to theological interpretation.
That looks like gibberish to me.
What is "the SCSPL"? (More Lagan jargon.)
Whatever it is, it's supposed to be as metaphysically fundamental as spacetime, ok I get that.
What is "structure S" and what does it mean to say that it "distributes over S"?
What does it mean to say that spacetime is "transparent from within"?
What does it mean to say that objects in reality are "s" possessing "the structure of one that merges the concepts and is self-dynamic and self-perceptual that is S"? It sounds like pantheism, where particular existing things participate in Being that makes them real, and the Being is ultimately One and is God.
It requires a lot more argument than your little catechism allows it. Just restating traditional theological ideas in pseudo-mathematical jargon don't make things any more comprehensible or plausible.
You probably need to be aware that these kind of ideas have a long history dating back to ancient times. It was a familiar and more or less standard idea in medieval philosophy. Things have essences that make them what they are. And they have being that makes them real. But in all the familiar objects of real life, being and essence don't coincide and aren't one and the same. A horse can be real or it can be imaginary and still be a horse. We can imagine nonexistent things.
Supposedly there's only one thing in which being and essence are one and the same, namely God. (That's where the ontological argument comes from, since God's reality is supposedly part of what it means to be God. It's supposedly impossible to imagine God not existing, since the thing imagined wouldn't be God.) And it's this God, this Being, that gives all the particular things of our experience their reality by participation or something like that.
