>Now it's really interesting, you say that every thing your consciousness/self (I think they are the same thing) experiences is also a self proving concept,

No, that is not what I was saying at all. You're dangling at least one foot into strawman argument territory with that.

>but I say to that, we don't actually know if there are any patterns at all,

Yes, we do. Consciousness proves there are patterns. You can't have one without the other. Disagreeing with this can only mean you don't know what patterns are.

>in one example, if all patterns exist then no pattern exists.

I have not said anything about ALL patterns existing.

>How that would apply in the real world is that causality could be a myth and it's infinity fluctuating between causality and everything else is what exists making room for it to be interpreted yet still be objectively not there.

I have not gone into causality. Causality is about cause and effect. I have been talking about the self existing and what it existing entails. I mean, I have not named causality among the six things, have I?

>Also I think "relations" is a better word than "patterns" It's more fundamental

Explain what you mean by "relations", please. Because again it seems you don't understand what patterns are.

Put another way, relations with what? My point is that you have the self. What makes the self the self? X does. X proves that we also have patterns and consequences.

You want to change this to X actually proving we have relations. Relations with what? And how would those relations NOT come down to patterns (and, possibly, also consequences) fundamentally?