In 1610 God Was a Binary, Fractal, Self-Replicating Algorithm

Jakob Boehme, a simple shoemaker born in the 15th century, suddenly realized one day that “God was a binary, fractal, self-replicating algorithm and that the universe was a genetic matrix resulting from the existential tension created by His desire for self-knowledge.”

Talk about incredible! A man whose education consisted of the Bible and proper sole curvature came up with a postulation that unifies religion and contemporary quantum theories of the universe during a stroke of intuition. The man has gone on to inspire such minds as Friedrich Nietzsche, to Georg Willhelm, to Philip K. Dick to Adam Weishaupt.

His work integrates, involves, and unifies kabbalah, alchemy, theosophy, sacred geometry, yin and yang, cosmology, and enlightenment.

A mind far ahead of it’s time!

8 thoughts on “In 1610 God Was a Binary, Fractal, Self-Replicating Algorithm

    • You’re referring to the Mandelbrot set. That was “discovered” in 1975. It’s not that fractals were discovered at this time, more that they were finally put into words and expressed mathematically. The idea of a fractal, or something that fractals/self repeats was still an idea/notion long before that.


  1. Only problem is, the term fractal was not coined until the 20th century. Even the study of fractals was not initiated until the 17th century.


    • Though the term wasn’t coined yet, the conceptualization of a fractals had already taken place long before even the 17th century.


      • Maybe that is true, but you directly used the word “fractal” in the quote attributed to someone from the 15th century. For that matter, the words “existential” was not around yet either. Yes, perhaps the concept, but not that succinct words, which you have in the “quotation”. Simply makes it very difficult to believe that this is even close to a real quotation, which casts a cloud over the entire article.


      • The quote is not from Jakob Boehme. It is from the site I referenced that is hyperlinked into Boehme’s name. The article I quoted is not from the 15th century. I agree that to put words into Boehme’s mouth is wrong, but that is not what occurred. Using words like “fractal” and “existential” to describe Boehme’s theory is just semantics. If in 200 years a fractal is referred to as a “farmel,” saying that Boehme theorized God as a type of farmel would still be correct as they are synonymous.


  2. Pingback: Is Religion Good For Your Brain? - Wondergressive

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s