# Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

```
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:17 PM, benjayk
>
>>
>>
>>
>> benjayk wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> > But with comp, you are using "1+1=2", and much more, to tackle the
>> >>> > subjective truth of a universal number thinking about "1+1=2". So,
>> if
>> >>> > you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense.
>> >>> I didn't write I reject arithmetical truth. I reject arithmetical
>> >>> realism;
>> >>> I
>> >>> don't think arithmetical truth exists seperately from its observer.
>> >>> 1+1=2
>> >>> is
>> >>> still true, just not independently of us. The reason is that 1+1=2
>> makes
>> >>> sense because it is true, and truth is fundamentally linked to a
>> subject
>> >>> that intuits what truth is.
>> >>> This doesn't mean that 1+1=2 is true for me and not true for somebody
>> >>> else,
>> >>> but that is necessarily true because I (=consciousness, not ego)
>> >>> necessarily
>> >>> am.
>> >>> My hypothesis is that truth is equal to awareness / consciousness /
>> "I
>> >>> am-ness" and all kind of expressions of truth are just... well,
>> >>> expressions
>> >>> of the truth and not independent of it. 1+1=2 is an expression of 1+1
>> >>> being
>> >>> itself as 2.
>> >>> This hypothesis makes everything mysterious, but this may just be as
>> it
>> >>> is.
>> >>> The truth is necessarily mysterious. All explanations are just
>> >>> expressions
>> >>> of its mysterious nature, that allow us to look deeper into what it
>> is,
>> >>> but
>> >>> never giving an explanation *for* it. It's beyond explanations,
>> seeing
>> >>> itself through explanations.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> Ben,
>> >>
>> >> Would you say that e^*(2 * Pi * i) is exactly equal to 1, rather than
>> >> approximately equal to 1?
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If you believe that it is, you are believing in the independent
>> existence
>> >> of
>> >> infinitely long numbers e and Pi, numbers which have never been fully
>> >> grasped by any human, and potentially never grasped by any conscious
>> >> being
>> >> anywhere (due to their infinite nature).
>> > I don't believe they exist independently. We don't need to grasp
>> numbers
>> > to be the fundament to their existence. We can't grasp ourselves. Yet
>> here
>> > we are. So the same goes for numbers.
>> >
>> > Even 1+1=2 is not graspable, because we can't grasp what 1 is. There
>> are
>> > infinitely many possibilities what 1 may be, dependent on various
>> > contexts.
>> >
>> > I don't think anything can fully grasped. The most simple things cannot
>> be
>> > grasped because they have infinite contexts (and they cannot be taken
>> out
>> > of context, eg a square just exists because there is space that it
>> exists
>> > in). The more complex cannot be grasped because of the same reason and
>> > because they are... well, to complex to grasp.
>> > We can describe / put labels on reality and make good theories, but we
>> > can't grasp any part of it in an ultimate way. It all grows and melts
>> as
>> > soon as we become aware of it.
>> >
>> > So, with your argument, everything has independent existence (as a
>> whole).
>> > Which actually makes sense, so I am okay with that.
>> >
>> > I am just opposed to the notion that parts of truth are totally
>> seperate
>> /
>> > independent from *each other*. If they were, there would be no truth
>> that
>> > connects them, but there is, if it is only the truth that they both
>> exist.
>> >
>>
>> To put it in another way: Consciousness (=God) is everything (and
>> nothing),
>> but it doesn't know and can't know everything, because what it is cannot
>> be
>> completely known, as it is absolutely infinite. God *is* everything, yet
>>
>> Which doesn't mean that nothing is known, just that all knowledge is
>> always
>> incomplete. It doesn't matter what the knowledge is about, since all
>> knowledge is contextual, and the context ultimately is everything.
>> --
>
>
>
> Ben,
>
> These ideas are reminiscient of the Hindu concept of Parabrahman and
> Atman:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabrahman#Conceptualization
>
> "The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, so there is no qualitative
> difference."
> "The Atman or self, he claimed, is indistinguishable from the supreme
> reality from which it derives. "
>
> Jason
> ```
```
Yeah, in general I like these concepts (not necessarily the further
interpretations of it, eg the claim that everything is illusory that is not
"pure", unmanifest brahman).
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32083175.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to