On Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 4:38:50 AM UTC+1 Russell Standish wrote:
I do lurk on this list, and happy to discuss related matters. Others on this list are interested as well. But I am busy with other things, so may be little delayed from time to time. As for these theories aren't popular, we are hardwired to believe in an objective reality external to ourselves, and these theories really require one to abandon that in favour of intersubjective consistency. For many, this is too bitter a pill to swallow. Just a thought. Cheers There is no reason to swallow the pill in the first place if there are question marks over the theories. For ToN, dismissal of objective external reality can be challenged by considering one of the core statements made in the book: 'Not only is our psyche emergent from the electrical and chemical goings on in the brain, but the laws governing that chemico-electrical behaviour in turn depend on our psyche.'(p8-9, 2011 edition). I can't see how the first and second parts can be made compatible in any of the suggested types of plenitude (even with the help of the Anthropic Principle). The first part of the quote essentially provides the external objective reality point of view, with consciousness as dependent on the physical reality of a brain in a law-based cosmos. The second part either seems to require our own psyches as each being subject to physical laws internal to each of our consciousnesses (or Observer Moments), or else having each of our psyches as existing under some entirely different set of rules, with the psyches somehow being fooled into thinking that our qualia/ percepts reflected some actual external physical world, in a Matrix-like scenario, either under another intelligence's control or our own subconscious. If we then factor in the plenitude into any of these situations (so not Matrix-like as such now) this second part of the quote seems to require in one way or another a many worlds of consciousnesses (or OMs), with each consciousness being in any event a very complex entity with thoughts, emotions etc included; but without any explanation (though see below) for how that complex world came about, nor for the corresponding plenitude of worlds, so providing a very contrived picture of reality at the most fundamental level. Unfortunately, other plenitudes suggested (all possible bitstrings and all possible descriptions) don't really help - they stay only as abstract (even after internal 'bootstrapping' or where non-concrete computing or equations are concerned), and can at best only represent reality, not intrinsically become it (or explain it) ie one can't just reify the abstract without justification, whether that reality is deemed physical or consciousness based. Also, bitstrings are multiply interpretable (and if only by a 'fundamental' consciousness, this becomes a circular argument); and descriptions as used in the book effectively refer to qualia/percepts, which require an observer of some kind, leading to another contrived plenitude of all possible observers. Further, I am not sure about how to relate the QM state vector (psi) to an OM where the latter in theory could be an indirectly perceived red-shifted photon originating from close to an apparent Big Bang. (0ne Big Bang for each OM in the OM-plenitude???) Together with other question marks, it thus seems to me that an insufficiently good case has been made to reject external objective reality. ToN itself is a remarkable book covering a huge range of topics in an accessible way, and I am in agreement with many aspects of it, though not with its central idealist approach [which due to a misunderstanding I earlier only agreed to a physicalist equivalent (re p61)]. If you have the time I would be happy to be shown where I am going wrong in the above, if that turns out to be the case, as it could help clarify my own thinking. Thanks Alastair On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 09:33:41AM -0700, Gil Berry wrote: > Over the past few years, I convergently stumbled upon a theory extremely > similar to the one presented in Russel Standish's 2006 book 'The Theory of > Nothing.' I labeled my 'The Great Contradiction Model,' since it seems like the > universe can instead be characterized by a single contradiction (or > singularity), containing everything and nothing at the same time. I've been > trying to condense my findings into a document, but I seem to lose motivation > because there is an inherent lack of interest in previous writings on similar > theories. > > To me, these theories hold some of the most incredible wisdom I have ever come > across, and if not further, they potentially describe reasons for our > existence. So why are they ignored but other philosophies with less truth > latched onto? > > While it could be a matter of advertising, I think it is more fundamental: to > live is to be in ignorance of understanding. We've all heard the 'ignorance is > bliss' line. I think consciousness is fundamentally defined as being abstracted > from the absolute, contradictory, infinite truth of our universe. To live is to > believe in a special universe, not one of millions, therefore, this theory dies > because it is unimportant, if not harmful, to know about it. > > If anyone wants to talk with me about this, I would love to elaborate more. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email > to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list > /3c832e9e-4b92-42aa-aac7-e2dcabb1c90en%40googlegroups.com. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders [email protected] http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/240a30ae-496a-4bee-b765-7f1de25e5419n%40googlegroups.com.
