Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:17 PM, benjayk > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> >> benjayk wrote: >> > >> > >> > Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk >> >> <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > 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 >> infinitely ignorant about everything. >> >> 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 > http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atman#Advaita_Vedanta > > "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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
