header: Has anyone else been offended by the idea that "shit" is Einsteinium. After your body extracts all quantum resources from a substance the substance is known as shit. It's a non-living Kryptonite defying the usual laws of temporal space. Maybe it goes backward through time.
introduction: here's a philosophy book I've been working on for the past half a year. It looks at Wittgenstein, Russell, philosophical paradoxes. Ultimately the book will be more comprehensive, there are plans to add a timeline (beginning around 14000 BC) hopefully in the abstract.
paper in brief: the book aims to explain the transition from causal-space (a successor to logical-space and "space-time") into the reality of hierarchical ontology (a theoretical as-yet-incomplete successor to "subjectivism"). the book aims to invoke certain quantum paradoxes, observer-theoretics as a successful resolution to Humean causality.
causal-space is a statistician (econometrician's) perspective on Wittgenstein's logico-tractatus and the concept of logical-space. is logical-space truly logical-space is one of the question that the book aims to examine in great detail. much of the successful work is dedicated so far to dismantling the role of the tractatus (which is used incorrectly, in my opinion). to excavate this conclusion i looked briefly at the Haus Wittgenstein and thus the owing consideration: is Wittgenstein's sister likely to interprete proposition p in logical-space same language-game as Wittgenstein? Will L.W. and sister naively interpret p = p, p = q (L.W.) p = r (sister), p ⇔ p and ideally (p ≡ p).
my essays on humean causality are not yet included. the gist of the concept (and this book outline) aims at describing a sort of humean-equilibrium wherein "naïve" physical determinism transitions into a more complex cerebral and cognitive environment that i associate with "subjectivism". the full idea in brief is discussed toward the end of the paper. the idea is that "hierarchical interrogative" (quite roughly) mutually Turing-surpassing conversation is both perceived, understood, and implemented cognitively to yield higher order spatiotemporal psychology. in practice Turing-interrogative as introduced into the paper is thought to mimic successful conversation (the idea being that both conversational partners repetitively exceed the "Turing threshold")...
this is where the book is headed. the complete work aims to be archaeological as well as psychological. the beginning of the book examines philosophical paradoxes from an intended archaeological stance, unveiling the "social constructivism" of philosophical paradox. this is one of the strongest points of the book in my opinion because it unveils the concept of causal-space from a practical, empirical, and philosophical worldview.
Is this a parody of obscurantist philosophy? If so well done. Otherwise, I guess I just don't understand. Therefore, it must be art!! What a beautiful work of art. Not quite as beautiful as that painting where a guy literally covered the canvas in white paint though, and its hanging in the Guggenheim art museum somewhere I'm sure with self-important cultural elitists staring at it, nodding to themselves like they understand the true brilliance of something a 2 year old could do.
if you don't feel comfortable with Wittgenstein's bedside manner philosophy then your post is just like mine only less detailed. How can you repair endless losses of Nashian "antagonistic" antagonists it's as easy as being born rivfch.. Ultimately everyone makes the same mistake Witt isn't only one.
I am, therefore i exist; i exist, therefore i can move, think, dream, travel, and modify this or other realities; Different realities are actually closely threads toghether, therefore i am multiple times; However while being here on earth, i am choosing to belong to this reality, Therefore i am right here and right now, and make it my priority to bring all of myself to this time and space.
Someone once said that modern art developed because, in the old days, beauty was expensive and the province of the elite, but, now that beauty is cheap and commonplace, we have to make "art" as arcane and esoteric as possible, adhering to rules that only the specialist can ever hope to gain the slightest smidgen of intelligibility.
(I'd now like to point out that the body of my post is one sentence.)
On August 03 2016 07:03 Jerubaal wrote: Someone once said that modern art developed because, in the old days, beauty was expensive and the province of the elite, but, now that beauty is cheap and commonplace, we have to make "art" as arcane and esoteric as possible, adhering to rules that only the specialist can ever hope to gain the slightest smidgen of intelligibility.
(I'd now like to point out that the body of my post is one sentence.)
Well played, and i can point out two ways that you are contradicting yourself: 1 - it is made so to sell better and for more money; nobody does philosophy from an empty stomac; 2 - art and reality, are simple by nature; comprehension of such things are made complicated by the fact that interpretating them is the human mind, which is overrated and limited, and not by the emotion or soul level, which is more advanced and capable of understanding simple and vast concepts. To some extent western society has pushed the brain but not the emotional or spiritual growth. Now they are moving to the latter to create a healthy balance beetwen the three. Food for thought, everything out of the imagination does not come from the first.
The fact that on this website you are not allowed to answer with images but only words is one example. To conclude, while the body of your post demonstrates advanced intellectual thinking and acting, it fails to satisfy the latter parts of a human beings concerns
Haven't read the paper yet, but i'm interested that the character of the inflection point between physical determinism and the higher order subjective environment you envision is informed by the concept of a Turing test view of conversation between individual consciousnesses (do I understand properly?). Why settle on that rubric?
On August 04 2016 02:30 EatThePath wrote: Haven't read the paper yet, but i'm interested that the character of the inflection point between physical determinism and the higher order subjective environment you envision is informed by the concept of a Turing test view of conversation between individual consciousnesses (do I understand properly?). Why settle on that rubric?
that's a good question. it is not, actually in my view formed by the relationship of "Turing interrogative" although Turing interrogative in the short response I wrote was envisioned as a scaling solution mimicking actual conversation. In my perspective, actual conversation (where both parties are perceiving) increases in complexity over time. For instance you might start below a "Turing threshold" (globally speaking) and then find the level of conversation beyond a Turing threshold later as the conversation progresses.
the initial book was inspired by talks with a professor of metaphysics. the idea of identity and of time arrived across the course, and my realization was that time was really a subjective phenomenon with respect of "causation". the closest related work seemed to me at the time to be Wittgenstein's Tractatus which asserts that the world is an entity in logical-space. this is of course a very bizarre view despite the popularity of the TLP.
reading the TLP carefully and studying Wittgenstein's later works it become evident that a space-time consistent formulation of logical-space could be called something like causal-space and make reference to my albeit limited knowledge about quantum observers and propositions of physics. indeed the notion of the world existing in logical-space is a powerful one because it suggests a language background for the world. my paper disagrees with a unified human language background for the world and would if it could favor a background of perception, observation, and cognition (as suggested as an eventual alternative to physical determinism). it was this role of perception, observation and cognition, in short of advanced language as a mode of formatting the world that i began to become interested in the notion of Turing interrogative. is the world in fact formatted more than we believe by consciousness and language? maybe.
the idea seems to tie in with Leibniz and possible worlds. Do we indeed live in the best of all possible worlds, and how potentially powerful is the doctrine of possible worlds? especially from a determinism standpoint, could we indeed have entire universes that were physically determined. for instance could string theory from a modern perspective create something like "Gödel complete" universes or worlds. (could a computer with enough sophistication and resources) create multiple images of Earth that were each complete from a 3D setting? in fact the universe may have many more than 3 spatial dimensions, and thus from the perspective of a statistician we might expect that the 3 "relevant" physical variables could be isolated to a high degree of accuracy with a great deal of information, that is, leeway left over.
in my theory of perception, cognition and language, this suggests something like the Everett multiworld hypothesis on a grand scale. It also suggests a basis for a lot of other creative ideas like quantum death, quantum longevity, etc. Do conscious humans daily walk roughly speaking between a variety of physically determined worlds? Is this a potential role of consciousness?
To this end I also look at a lot of more modern philosophy and hope to study more of it. Do we really believe in the principle of non-contradiction for instance? That we cannot have both "p" and "not p" Not necessarily. This is a topic I hope to cover in depth and how it relates to basic symbolic logic. The paper has tried at several points to introduce a more complex idea it calls resolution geometry in which we obtain to higher-orders of proposition "p". Is p for instance traversing possible worlds? If so then p is sometimes p and sometimes not quite p. This is in fact a pretty popular hypothesis in my opinion.
In fact the introduction and several of the puzzles toward the end of my book deal with exactly this phenomenon he describes as the Tarski-Banach paradox. Mathematicians may be interested in this video as it seems to introduce some very good routes to solving questions of Cantor etc.
in fact the notion of "Turing threshold" "Turing interrogative" are intimately related with notion of physically determined worlds here on Earth where I believe (based on experiences I've had) we have successfully created "determined" 3D worlds. Is it possible to traverse strings in this way etc. How advanced is our string theory / super string theory. How advanced will it become? If for instance we could write quantum code about the nature of perceptual observers and the rough role of cognition in affecting the universe, could we globalize such code to obtain an interestingly operative sense of possible worlds? Do observers elect to view all possible worlds? Are some possible worlds in 4D? Does anything escape the Turing Threshold (maybe in the opposite direction of successfully far exceeding), is Turing interrogative a realistic mode of traversing 3D "determined" worlds.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LGSqTGj.png)
