My point is that the root of all interpersonal relationships is not the community, but the individual. — Gus Lamarch
Obviously, if two beings with the same goals and purposes - like 1 and 1, where both complete the same goal - add or subtract 1 - - come together, the tendency is for them to unite. — Gus Lamarch
You represent a relatively common point of view: all these thinkers are freaks and nuts, having enormous and baseless ambitions. It is understandable and widespread. Yet, this opinion is as old as philosophy itself: Plato has perfectly narrated the story of Socrates. — Number2018
There are standard procedures for ruling out hallucinations and these are invariably scaled-up versions of the normal act of perceiving; people, more people, instruments, more instruments, you know the deal but the bottom line is the entire exercise is nothing but the act of perceiving just ramped up. — TheMadFool
It seems that physicalism is either false or circular. — TheMadFool
We know, from the great Cantor's work, the cardinality of the set of Even numbers = cardinality of the set of Whole numbers. A part = The whole. — TheMadFool
What's 1 ÷ infinity? If it's 0 then infinity × 0 = 1?? — TheMadFool
In this way we can achieve arbitrary precision (infinite) on the value of the sqrt(2). — TheMadFool
So, what's infinity + 1? How does your answer, which must be infinity, square with the answer to 2 + 1? — TheMadFool
A proof of the existence of noncomputables is not the same as an algorithm that can generate noncomputables. — TheMadFool
Insofar as the universe being a simulation is the issue, the distinction real-unreal is irrelevant. The real numbers can be accessed through our minds and that means they have to be encoded in the simulation unless the universe is a partial simulation like a cyborg or thereabouts. — TheMadFool
Thanks for the stimulating discussion. I'm out of my depth here so thanks for indulging me and my bizarre ideas. — TheMadFool
Now that I think of it, humans have struggled greatly with the concept of infinity. Basically, infinity DOESN'T COMPUTE! for humans. Last I checked, it all "started making sense" in the 1870's with Georg Cantor's work. — TheMadFool
This, at some level, suggests that the universe doesn't contain actual infinities and that our brains can't handle what is essentially infinite information. — TheMadFool
The other side of this story is that non-computable irrationals (Chaitin's constant for example) exist. In other words, the universe does contain instances of infinite randomness and these can't be reduced to finite algorithms. Ergo, the universe isn't a simulation. — TheMadFool
People aspire to achieve happiness through the possession of material goods and ordinary self-affirmation. Many of them experience joy, maybe at least for some while. Unfortunately, for some reason, I am different. — Number2018
And interwoven through all of it was some felt urgency, like, for some reason, I had to understand these guys, or be left out in some sort of metaphysical cold. — csalisbury
All that out of the way, I'd like to run something by you. I have this notion of infinite randomness in my mind. To me it means the existence of an infinity that is completely devoid of all patterns. If such infinite randomness were discovered to exist (I don't care as to where) can we infer the impossibility of reality being an illusion based on the premise that to code infinite randomness would require an infinite set of instructions, a task that can't be completed, and if so, such a code can't ever be actually executed? — TheMadFool
If nothing else, perhaps all the responses you are getting, suggests that your whole philosophy of egoism is an important area, worthy of debate. — Jack Cummins
You gave an existence proof without naming any specific noncomputable number. And in order to do so you needed a cardinality or a measure theoretic argument, neither of which are physically meaningful. — fishfry
Of course his post is finite so it's not likely that he's specified any particular noncomputable real. But the larger point is that a number that encodes an infinite amount of information has a lesser claim to mathematical existence than one that encodes only a finite amount of information. — fishfry
And either way, mathematical existence is not physical existence, A computer could put in our minds the idea of a flying horse, Captain Ahab, Captain Kirk, and noncomputable numbers. But since those things don't exist in the physical world, they are not evidence that the world is not a computer. — fishfry
The tower of Babel is upon us. — magritte
"So that 2, 3, 4, 5... may come into being as concepts, the 1 must have been conceived beforehand."
Therefore, the idea that the individual only emerges after the community is nothing more than demagogy or doublethink of those who, having conceived their individuals - their Self - need others to share their freedoms as Beings in order to exacerbate the individual from the conscious one. — Gus Lamarch
Human society - and not just contemporary society - always seems to have sought - and often forced - the homogeneity of the thought that "the group must always come before the Self" and to implement it in civilization. — Gus Lamarch
But once you get beyond the physical, language falls apart - there are no clear definitions and you end up with a word salad - and no two people can agree on anything. — EricH
I cannot assert this with 100% certainty, but I have a high level of confidence that - at best - metaphysics is a form of poetry in which people attempt to express vague feelings of, umm, well - and here I get stuck - I'm not quite sure what it is they're trying to express. — EricH
The resolution to this dilemma, developed by Plato and Aristotle, is dualism. Hence the great rise in Christian dualism. — Metaphysician Undercover
If say x, an non-computable irrational number, exists, I mean, limiting myself to the current domain of discourse, that it has the same ontolological status as, say, the number 2 or the square root of 2 or pi or e. — TheMadFool
If given a full-option offer, people will chose the real over a simulation provided that in both cases the same level of happiness is guaranteed. If the first choice is taken away, people will happily choose a simulated reality [this is what I suspect Cypher/Cipher is going through]. Neo, Morpheus, and the rest of the human underground resistance chose 4 only because their victory is a gateway to 1. Had, option 1 been precluded for whatever reason, almost everyone would go for option 2 and ask to be reconnected to The Matrix. — TheMadFool
Why? You seem to assume that whatever meta-reality "programs" our reality is subject to the same laws and processes that occur in our world. Perhaps our notion of time does not exist there, nor the physical laws of our universe. In that case your argument concerning the irrationals is meaningless. Just a thought. — jgill
if you can make crude predictions then you understand the phenomenon on at least one level.
It's not all-or-nothing in science, you can have levels of understanding. — Mijin
Such things are composed of form (from which both information and ideas etymologically derive) and matter: — Andrew M
But at that point the word "Physical" becomes meaningless and redundant, as it should, and so will "Idealism". We'll just have "thingism" — khaled
I am very curious to know how the Christians manage to maintain their belief, while having read Nietzsche seriously. — Coryanthe
Swenson, Schneider and Kay, Lineweaver, Salthe and many more have hammered out the basics of how life and mind arise as dissipative structures with the intelligence to exploit entropic gradients. — apokrisis