You're probably the type that thinks the each human is completely unique and dissimilar. — Bitter Crank

On the contrary. I stress that although there is an infinite set of differences - we tend to disregard them and establish similarities. However, the finite set of similarities cannot disguise the fact that there is an infinity of differences.

As it is now - we take the finite set of similarities and proclaim them as repeatable stets of causes and effects. As if they are not unique.

Enjoy the day,

Mmm, singularity is the madness of reason, its vertigo and its dirty little secret. — StreetlightX

It is rather an upside-down opposite to mathematical singularity. Mathematical objects (including singularity) are rather derived from natural phenomena.

Enjoy the day,

It's not really. If you had an orchard growing pears, apples, and oranges, and you had to group the output by kind of fruit, that wouldn't be difficult. — Wayfarer

And that is a miracle we do almost every moment of our life – without noticing what we are doing. — Damir Ibrisimovic

The counting is simple, regardless of unnoticed "miracle". We simply "forget" differences

And indeed the universe 'is ticking' with repeatable causes and effects (even if it's a rather odd turn of phrase.) — Wayfarer

If it were repeatable causes and effects, then the planted apple would be exactly the same as the parent tree. While we are pretty sure about the approximate effect - we are still having an infinity of differences.

Name me one effect that is 100% the same as a previous effect. Apple seeds are not very convincing.

Enjoy the day,

Person A: Nonsense! I must post this to the internet at once! — John Doe

I'll take it as "good natured jest".

Good, well then perhaps you should set to work reinventing the whole theoretical apparatus which enables internet, wifi, computing, satellites and microchips first. — John Doe

It is not only me, there are others working on it.

For example;

The monotonic logics are being replaced by non-monotonic logic mostly as a practice.

I have also criticised the concept of "information" in IT. In short, Norbert Wiener renamed Shannon's information entropy into information and changed signs in Shannon's formulas. Consequently, we have the whole IT industry talking about information instead of information entropy and redundance. And Shannon was looking for information entropy to calculate how much redundancy is needed to preserve a message.

In AT (Artificial Intelligence) we already have modest ways to handle "impossible" phenomena. (Reference: Complex Adaptive System (theory))

Re Descartes: Have you noticed that Descartes observed .5 sec delay - the delay Benjamin Libet measured centuries later. (Soldier fighting instinct to run away and then changing it to go to the battle.)

Enjoy the day,

A suggestion – you obviously imply the static, monotonic logics. Once you derive a conclusion – there is no way to correct it based upon new information. In addition, all monotonic logics imply rules of a finite system. Note, Gödel’s proof that there are truths in finite (closed) systems that cannot be derived from other truths within the finite (closed) system.

I, therefore, suggest that we familiarise ourselves with non-monotonic logic. In this logic there are no final conclusions. Each conclusion can be revised in the light of new information. Non-monotonic logic is not a closed system – it allows for infinite (open) systems.

The non-monotonic logic has been tested in IT (Information Technology) and offers more realistic scenarios.

Reference: Complex Adaptive Systems.

Enjoy the day,